Tag: Assisted suicide

assisted suicide

Number of assisted suicide deaths soars in Victoria

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board has released its 2025–26 annual report, revealing a sharp uptick in the number of assisted suicide deaths over the past year and a staggering 400% increase since the practice was legalised. Assisted suicide now accounts for 1.1% of all deaths in Victoria.

The entire report can be accessed below.

by Kathy Clubb

Overview

More people in Victoria are dying from voluntary assisted dying (VAD), and more are choosing to
have practitioners facilitate the procedure, according to the 2025–26 annual report of the state’s
Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board.

The overall number of deaths during this 12-month period was 512, which includes both patient-administrated deaths as well as those facilitated by physicians. This brings the total number of deaths since VAD was legalised in mid-2019 to 2,188. That figure is over 3,000 when one includes the number of patients with permits but who died before accessing VAD.

1,156 patients applied for VAD, representing an increase of almost 40% from the previous year with 908 permits being issued – an increase of over 40%. This is the biggest increase in a single year since assisted suicide was legalised.

401 applications were withdrawn, most commonly because the patient died before they could access VAD. According to the report, 39% of patients passed away within two weeks of making their first VAD request. Proponents of VAD see this as a negative, and have secured amendments (see below) to make it even easier and quicker for patients to take their own lives in the future.

assisted suicide

Suicide drugs were dispensed to 702 people; 161 of those were medical practitioners. The number of deaths directly caused by medical professionals increased from just under to just over one quarter of the total.

The most sobering figure is the increase in deaths from the beginning of the VAD regime: there were 129 deaths in the first complete year, 2019–2020, meaning that there has been a 400% increase over the past six years.

assisted suicide

Soothing language

Since the report is compiled by avid proponents of assisted suicide, the language is naturally very favourable towards the practice.

For example, increases in the number of patients committing suicide is disconcertingly described as “reassuring”. The report’s authors also believe it is “reassuring” that there is growing community awareness of VAD, although they express regret that more patients from non-English speaking backgrounds are not choosing to kill themselves.

Similarly, is deemed “reassuring” that those living in regional areas have good access to assisted suicide, since 40% of applications are coming from outside the Melbourne metro area, despite the lower relative population.

Expansion of assisted suicide planned from 2027

Amendments to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act were made last year and will come into effect next year. They are breathtaking in their scope and for the increased access patients will have to legally taking their own lives. From the report:

  • removal of the “gag clause”. In the Act, health practitioners were legally prohibited from initiating discussions about VAD with patients. The patient had to raise the topic first. The Amendment Act allows health practitioners, including medical practitioners, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, psychologists, and Aboriginal health practitioners, to begin discussions as part of their end-of-life care.
  • extending medical prognosis timeframe. The Act required a prognosis of less than 6 months to live, or 12 months for a neurodegenerative condition. The Amendment Act extends the prognosis timeframe to 12 months for all eligible conditions.
  • reduced minimum waiting period. The minimum period of 9 days from an applicant’s first request to final request has been reduced to 5 days.
  • providing choice of administration of VAD substance. The Act required applicants to self-administer the VAD substance unless they were unable to do so. The Amendment Act empowers applicants to choose either self-administration or practitioner administration, and to change method of administration more easily.
  • removal of the need for a third assessment. There will no longer be a requirement for a third prognosis assessment for applications with a neurodegenerative condition.
  • stronger conscientious objection obligations. The Amendment Act clarifies that health practitioners who conscientiously object to providing VAD services must still inform the applicant that another practitioner can assist them and provide referral information.
  • changes to practitioner eligibility. At least one of the medical practitioners assessing a person’s eligibility to access VAD must have practised for at least one year following specialist or vocational registration (instead of 5 years post-fellowship as currently required). A new role of administering practitioner will be created, extending the authority to administer VAD substances to registered nurses (with at least 5 years registration) and nurse practitioners.
  • more flexible residency eligibility. While the requirement for an applicant to have been resident in Victoria for 12 months remains, the Amendment Act creates an exemption application process to the Secretary of the Department of Health. [page 7]

When things go wrong

While the report focused on the bureaucratic side of VAD – applications, permits and compliance – no mention was made of complications that arose during patient deaths. Nevertheless, some idea of potential complications can be gleaned from studies and reports in other jurisdictions where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal.

For example, this study of 649 cases from the Netherlands shows that:

  • Complications occurred in 7 percent of cases of assisted suicide
  • Problems with completion occurred in 16 percent of the cases. These included:
    • a longer-than-expected time to death
    • failure to induce coma
    • induction of coma followed by awakening of the patient
  • In cases of euthanasia, complications and problems with completion occurred in 3 percent and 6 percent respectively.
  • The physician intervened in 18% of cases to administer a lethal medication, meaning that these became euthanasia cases. Reasons included:
    • problems with completion
    • inability of the patient to take all the medications.

Another study reveals that “Patients may become unconscious relatively quickly but the dying process can take up to 30 hours or more. There are also reports of people re-emerging from a coma and sitting up during the dying process.” It also mentions that the drugs used for killing patients have been used to kill prisoners saying: ” … use of medicines during executions has been described as ‘inhumane’ with reports of people feeling ‘burning’ sensations throughout their bodies prior to death.“

Other recorded complications include difficulty in ingesting drugs, regurgitation, seizures. There can also be an impact on family members, with reports of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression after loved ones takes their own lives through VAD.

What ‘non-compliance’ really means

One section of the report is dedicated to the topic of “non-compliance”, an innocent-sounding term which in reality can be a matter of life and death. The report summarizes the issue by saying that “the rate of non-compliance remains low – at about 2% of applications – and typically involves administrative errors that do not present material risks to applicants.”

However, buried later in the report is a case which had nothing whatsoever to do with “administrative errors”: someone used their partner’s legally-dispensed suicide drugs to take their own life.

The contact person was the partner of a VAD applicant who had a cancer diagnosis and a prognosis of less than six months. The applicant made their first request for VAD in December 2025, and a self-administration permit was issued in February 2026.

In April 2026, the VAD applicant died in hospital, without having taken the substance. The contact person, the applicant’s partner, is assumed to have consumed the VAD substance at some point over the subsequent two days.

Three days after the applicant’s death the Board and the Department of Health were notified of both the applicant’s death through usual reporting processes, and, at the same time, the death of the contact person. [page 49]

The report ends by saying that “What this experience has brought into focus is the importance of grief and bereavement support for the partners, family members, and support people of those who access VAD, as with any end-of-life care option.”

This conclusion, while giving the appearance of compassion, overlooks the stark reality: assisted suicide and euthanasia teach society that killing oneself is the answer to any of life’s problems, from terminal illness or mental illness to loneliness and grief.

Advocates for assisted suicide including the authors of the new Victorian report should not be surprised if those left behind also see suicide as a way out of their suffering. Sadly, these proponents of radical individualism fail to acknowledge how incoherent – and dangerous – their position really is.

About the author
Kathy Clubb is an Australian mother and grandmother who has home-educated her children for the best part of 30 years. In 2016, Kathy was part of an unsuccessful attempt to defeat Victoria’s abortion exclusion-zones, which led to a constitutional challenge in the High Court of Australia in late 2018. Her articles have appeared at Family Life International, The Remnant Newspaper, LifeSiteNews, the Daily Declaration, Caldron Pool and Fidelity magazine.

Victoria’s 2025/26 assisted suicide report

voluntary-assisted-dying-review-board-annual-report-july-2025-june-2026Download
assisted suicide

Assisted suicide Bill defeated in House of Commons

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

MPs have voted to reject Lauren Edwards’ assisted suicide Bill by 286 votes to 270. It was the second time in less than two years that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill had been considered by MPs after it was first brought forward by Kim Leadbeater in 2024.

by The Christian Institute

That Bill was narrowly approved by the House of Commons but failed to progress from the House of Lords due to an unprecedented number of amendments tabled in response to its many flaws. Edwards’ legislation was almost an exact copy of the earlier Bill, and MPs this time voted not to let the dangerous law proceed.

Under the proposals, patients deemed to be terminally ill and with less than six months to live would have been allowed help to kill themselves.

Protecting the vulnerable

The Christian Institute’s Director Ciaran Kelly gave thanks to God for the result.

He explained: “It was a decisive shift in view from the Kim Leadbeater Bill through to this Lauren Edwards Bill. And we can be thankful that MPs have been persuaded by the arguments that have been put forward as to why this Bill should not be brought into law.”

Naïve idealism

Many MPs stood up to speak powerfully against the Bill, noting it was a vote, not in principle, but on the detail, as the Bill’s sponsor Lauren Edwards said she would not accept any amendments to the Bill.

Conservative MP Mims Davies called the Bill “a mixture of naïvety, idealism and wishful thinking”.

She added: “We are being asked to send this Bill back to the other place and perhaps use the Parliament Acts to force it through regardless of fitness for purpose with all knowledge of its flaws and its lack of workability to just get it done. But that means we are not listening in to the doctors who have spoken in this place today. I cannot subscribe to this type of lawmaking”.

Independent MP Rosie Duffield urged her colleagues across the chamber not to simply pass the Bill and “hope for the best”. She expressed her concerns that safeguards were lacking, noting that “not a single disabled rights organisation or professional body supports this legislation”.

Change of heart

Labour MP Janet Daby previously voted in favour of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, but said in today’s debate: “Following my vote in favour of assisted dying, for the following two nights, I had nightmares about dying and death.

“I had to wrestle with myself, knowing I was not entirely comfortable with the decision I had made, and my conscience was not at peace, and I could not again in good conscience vote for the Bill.”

She added: “I decided, that if the opportunity should arise again, I’d be voting against assisted dying.”

‘Consider our privilege’

Fellow Labour MP Sarah Smith said: “We must consider the privilege that we hold in this place, the confidence to challenge a doctor’s assessment, to turn down the suggestion of assisted death, the belief that we might be able to afford the care that we need when we are older, and make a true choice about how we might die.

“But we must remember that this is not the experience of most people, and certainly not the experience of those with lower levels of education, from ethnic minority backgrounds, those with disabilities or struggling to make ends meet.

“For them, the suggestion made by a doctor may easily sound like a decision for what is best for them. For them, the likelihood of having their mental capacity accurately assessed is far less than it would be for many of us.

“For them, and indeed for most of us, the assessment around how long they have left to live is often hugely inaccurate.”

Moral opposition

Northern Irish MP Carla Lockhart explained her opposition to assisted suicide was “not only practical, but moral”, adding: “Life is precious and it deserves protection from its beginning to its natural end. That is what my Christian faith teaches me.”

She said: “This house was founded on Christian principles, this legislation is so far removed from those Christian principles. The true measure of a compassionate society is not how easily it facilitates death, but how faithfully it cares for those who are suffering.”

And Martin Vickers, a Conservative MP, also pointed to his belief that “life is God-given”, and stated: “if assisted dying is legalised we will be poorer as a society. We will have crossed a line.”

Republished from The Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches. The Christian Institute is committed to upholding the truths of the Bible which we believe is inerrant and the supreme authority for all of life, and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

assisted dying

Safeguards in proposed Northern Territory Assisted Dying bill being gutted

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

As Darwin debates a new assisted dying law – the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill – the very protections written into it are already targeted by the people who campaigned for the law.

by RIGHT TO LIFE and Haylea Kennedy

The bill being debated

Right now, in Darwin, the Northern Territory Parliament is debating a bill that would make the Northern Territory the last jurisdiction in Australia to legalise assisted dying. It’s expected to pass this week on a conscience vote.

But here’s what should worry you: the “safeguards” being built into this bill are already being targeted for removal, before it’s even law.

Strip away the acronyms and here’s what the Rights of the Terminally Ill Bill actually does:

  • It legalises assisted dying in the NT for the first time since it was overturned by Canberra in 1997.
  • It limits eligibility to people with a prognosis of 12 months or less to live.
  • The patient can ask their doctor about assisted dying as an option at any time; a doctor cannot be the one to raise it first.

That third point is the one being fought over hardest this week. In the media, it’s almost always called a “gag clause.” As usual, language is being used to imply something quite different from what’s actually happening — and how often are we seeing that play out in Australia lately?

What a “gag clause” really is

“Gag” implies censorship — someone being silenced against his will. That’s not what this provision does. The patient can ask his doctor about assisted dying as an option at any time, and the doctor can answer honestly. What the clause does is keep the doctor from being the one to introduce death as a treatment option to a patient who hasn’t asked for it.

We need to call it what it is: a safeguard against a serious power imbalance.

A dying patient is frightened, exhausted, often in pain, and trained to trust his doctor’s judgement above almost anyone else’s.

If a doctor can raise assisted suicide unprompted, that judgement carries enormous weight — even when it isn’t meant as pressure, a patient can hear “have you thought about ending things” from their doctor as something close to a recommendation. The clause exists to make sure the idea comes from the patient, not from the person holding authority over his care.

Calling it a “gag” reframes a protection for patients as a restriction on doctors. That’s the language fight to watch, and it’s exactly the provision now being targeted for removal.

Push to widen assisted dying already underway

Andrew Denton, founder of the advocacy group Go Gentle Australia, has publicly welcomed this bill. But in the same breath, he and others — including the NT branch of the Australian Medical Association and the Labor opposition — are already pushing to strip out the very safeguards it contains: both the 12-month prognosis limit and the rule stopping doctors from raising assisted dying unprompted.

Think about what that means. The bill hasn’t even been passed yet, and the people who campaigned for this law are already campaigning to widen it. That’s not a slippery slope hypothetical, it’s happening in the same parliamentary sitting.

If the prognosis limit goes, who is “terminal” becomes far less clear. If doctors can raise assisted suicide unprompted, a sick, frightened, or depressed patient could hear it offered to him before they’ve asked, from the person he trusts most for medical guidance.

If you live in the Northern Territory and disagree with this bill, or you’re worried about how quickly its safeguards are being targeted, contact your local MLA this week, before the vote. (See details below)

This article first appeared at Right to Life and is reproduced here by permission. Right to Life is an action group dedicated to defending the inalienable human right to life from conception to natural death. Its work seeks to influence both culture and law in Australia, helping build a society where every human life is protected and valued.

Sources:

Contact your MLA (NT residents only):

  1. Find your electorate and MLA at the NT Legislative Assembly website (nt.gov.au / parliament.nt.gov.au).
  2. Email them directly — a short, personal message matters more than a form letter.
  3. Ask them to vote against the bill, or at minimum to reject amendments that remove the 12-month prognosis rule and the doctor gag clause.

📩 Download the letter template

📋 Find your MLA

rights

The abolition of doctor and patients’ rights since 2008

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Dr. Mark Hobart revisits the erosion of conscience rights for doctors and their patients as it has unfolded across Australia in recent decades. This post is based on recent talks and articles from Dr. Hobart.

In this piece I wish to explain and describe the progression of government control over medical practitioners that has occurred over the last 20 years, starting with:

  • the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act in 2008
  • the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act in 2010 (particularly with regards to the illegality of being able to discriminate according to gender identity and sex which is essential in the practice of medicine to avoid life-threatening disasters
  • the “no jab no pay/play” vaccination of children in 2016,
  • the legalisation of euthanasia in Victoria in 2017,
  • the Covid injection mandates in 2021,
  • and lastly the removal of conscientious objection to euthanasia by doctors in the amendments to the Victorian VAD law in December 2025.

I contend that these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare which is an Australian government agency, are in contravention of section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

The term “services” in this context means the private contract between the doctor and the patient for a medical service to occur, for which you need both parties, and for the contract to be valid you need informed consent and no coercion of either party.

Abortion

In October 2008, Victoria passed the Abortion Law Reform Act1 which stated that the doctors
must refer to a “non-objecting practitioner” when a patient presented to them requesting an
abortion if the doctor had a conscientious objection to the abortion. The doctor was not to
proceed with any further discussion or advice regarding the abortion. This law spread to all
the other states over the next few years.

In late November 2011 a woman presented to me who was 19 ½ weeks pregnant, accompanied by her husband. They requested an abortion because the baby was a girl and they did not want a girl because they already had one. I refused to refer her, explaining that it was dangerous for her health, and eventually I had to explain to her that it was also against my religious beliefs, when she replied that she was not concerned about the health risks.

On 17 May 2013, the medical board commenced an own motion investigation into my actions because I had failed to refer to a non-objecting practitioner and demonstrated a disregard for patient rights. On 30 January 2014, I was cautioned because I had stated in the media that I knowingly acted in contravention of section 8 of the abortion laws reform act, that is the section which prohibits conscientious objection.

Doctors unable to discriminate regarding gender or sex

According to the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 20102, attributes protected by law are:

  • age, race, and disability
  • gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation
  • marital, parental, or carer status
  • religion, political belief, and industrial activity

Of course it is necessary for doctors to discriminate on the basis of gender and sex and do so with every patient; not to do so would be very dangerous because men and women are anatomically and genetically different. However, this legislation has permitted hormonal and gross surgical mutilation, leading in many cases to misery and death.3

In July 2015, I was reported to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by a patient whom I had not seen previously, because I did not prescribe female hormones as the patient requested. The patient appeared male, and they said they were undergoing treatment to transition into a woman, and they said they were “legally a woman”.

Their usual doctor was not available at the time. It was a new patient. The patient had located me using the internet. I refused to prescribe the medication and explained to the patient that in my opinion it is dangerous to prescribe for a genetic male female hormones.

The complaint was looked at by the Human Rights Commission and conciliation of this complaint was attempted which was unsuccessful. The commission decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115 of the act. They said that conciliation of this complaint had been attempted but was unsuccessful, and that they had decided to close the matter pursuant to section 115(2)(a) of the Equal Opportunity Act which directs to 116(e):

“having regard to all the circumstances, the Commission considers it is not appropriate to provide or to continue to provide dispute resolution.”

So I think I dodged a bullet there!

Other doctors have not been so lucky: for example, Dr Jillian Spencer, the psychiatrist who lost her job at the Brisbane Children’s Hospital for three years because she didn’t follow the policy directions of the hospital with regards to puberty blockers in children. Recently, she has won her case against the hospital, and hopefully she’ll be reinstated.

No jab, no pay/play

In 2016, the Victorian government brought in “no jab, no play” laws which meant parents were required to have their children vaccinated with the recommended childhood vaccines or they would be penalised by withholding of the tax rebate, which could amount to up to $800 per fortnight, so that they could not afford to put their children into childcare or kindergarten.

Wealthy parents could afford to do this, but families where both parents had to work to pay the mortgage and put food on their table could not. I think most reasonable people would define this as coercion.

There is no avenue for the parents to refuse these vaccinations for the children because they are worried about their safety or adverse effects on the health of their child or the fact that some of these vaccines are manufactured from aborted foetal tissue.

Any doctor who advises against these vaccinations is highly likely to be suspended from practice and factor home. Doctors who advised against the vaccinations are highly likely to be suspended from practice and face cancellation of their licence. Dr John Piesse was suspended in 2017 for this and is still suspended.

Euthanasia

In 2017, Victoria legalised euthanasia4, calling it “voluntary assisted dying.” In most cases, this involved a doctor giving the patient a bottle of a very strong sedative, phenobarbital, which could be drunk later at a time of the patients choosing and which would, in most cases cause the patient’s death.

It is not called voluntary assisted suicide, possibly because assisted suicide is still a crime in Victoria punishable by five years imprisonment. Although suicide is not illegal, assisting or encouraging another person to commit suicide remains a criminal offence in Victoria.

Section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 19585 makes it an indictable offence to:

  • incite another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
  • aid or abet another person to commit suicide if the other person does so or attempts to do so.
  • be a party to a suicide pact.

The maximum penalty for these offences is five years’ imprisonment. As stated previously, the Victorian government amended the euthanasia law in December 2025, making conscientious objection to euthanasia illegal and stating that the doctor “must” give the patient information regarding euthanasia if the patient presents enquiring about euthanasia:

Conscientious objection of registered health practitioners.

(1)​ In section 7 (a) of the Principal Act, for “to” substitute “subject to subsection (2), to”.
​(2)​ At the end of section 7 of the Principal Act insert—
​”If a registered health practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying refuses to provide information about voluntary assisted dying to a person requesting information about or access to voluntary assisted dying, the practitioner must—
​(a)​ advise the person that another registered health practitioner or a health service provider may be able to assist the person in relation to information about or access to voluntary assisted dying; and
​(b) ​give the person the information approved by the Secretary.”6


Now we have Voluntary Assisted Dying, which should be called voluntary assisted suicide, but because assisted suicide is a crime listed in the crime act with a penalty of five years in jail it can’t be called that. It really can’t be called voluntary assisted death either because it’s up to the patient to take the medication which is supposed to kill them (usually phenobarbital which sometimes fails to kill the patient) at their own discretion so the the doctor doesn’t need to wait and make sure that the patient is dead.

Also, the doctor writing the death certificate must not write that the patient has died from the ingestion of the lethal dose of medication but write the terminal condition leading to the patient feeling that life is not worth living any more: for example, cancer, heart failure, multiple sclerosis or motor neurone disease (which Neil Daniher, a prominent Ausgralian footballer, had been suffering from for many years).

It is impossible to give an accurate estimation of how long these people will be expected to survive with any of these conditions. The legislation at present states that death is to be expected within 12 months.

According to this legislation, if a patient comes to you as a doctor requesting “assisted dying” and wants information as to how to do it, (i.e. they want to know how to kill themselves) instead of asking them why, and whether you feel it is a genuine possibility they would do this, and instead of calling the CAT team or the police surgeon to stop them, or certifying them yourself (as you could formerly do), you must give the advice on how to kill themselves including information approved by the government secretary.

I hope she’s a good secretary.

Imagine a patient coming to see a doctor requesting advice regarding euthanasia, and instead of the doctor asking them why they want to die and arranging urgent psychiatric evaluation, he or she must give them advice on how to do it. It really is beyond belief but here we are.

It is needless to say that if doctors criticise this legislation, they are putting themselves at risk of suspension in the same way as I was cautioned when I criticised the abortion legislation in 2013. Indeed, this happened to me.

On 26 February 2020 I was reported to the Health Complaints Commissioner by Dr Cameron McLaren, an oncologist at Peter McCallum hospital who promoted euthanasia and facilitated euthanasia for his patients and was featured prominently in “The Age” and “The Australian” newspapers on December 26 2019 and February 21 2020 respectively.

He also wrote an article in the “Australian Doctor” magazine on February 26 2020 on which doctors were invited to comment. He was asked “What are the reasons behind the patients coming to you?” He replied,

“for the vast majority, it is not due to the physical suffering they face. Dealing with pain, with physical suffering, is something that palliative care does manage exceptionally well… They might be very comfortable, even peaceful, but through voluntary assisted dying we can provide closure in ways that assist the grieving process for the patient and the family. It’s an existential problem – not just about pain management.”

I made a comment simply stating that Adolf Hitler suspended his euthanasia program on August 18, 1941 after public protests, which I quoted from the “History Channel.” The complaint was forwarded to AHPRA but no further action was taken.

COVID mandates

From the AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) position statement on COVID-19 vaccination:

“Any promotion of anti-vaccination statements or health advice which contradicts the best available scientific evidence or seeks to actively undermine the national immunisation campaign (including via social media) is not supported by National Boards and may be in breach of the codes of conduct and subject to investigation and possible regulatory action.” 7

In November 2021, I was suspended from medical practice by the medical board, being charged with professional misconduct. The main reason was that I had issued temporary COVID injection exemptions to my patients because I could not comply with the position statement.

By that time, it was widely known that the COVID injections caused death from myocarditis and pericarditis, and this was reported in the mainstream medical literature. It was also widely known that the vaccines did not prevent transmission of the virus, and that they caused myocarditis. Indeed, Dr Nick Coatsworth, Commonwealth deputy chief medical officer at the time of COVID, in an interview on “A Current Affair” in March 2025 has since admitted this and said that the covid mandates were “unethical”. (see 7.20 – 8.10)

This was also published in a poster by the NSW ambulance authority in August 2021. (see below).

rights

In November 2021 I was suspended by AHPRA because I gave temporary medical certificates usually of three months duration to my patients who were being forced to have the COVID injection otherwise they would lose their jobs and or have an injection which was dangerous to their health and or also conflict with their religious beliefs because the injections were made from aborted human foetal parts.

When I had the opportunity to ask, about 50% of them had suicidal ideation about this, so I had no hesitation in giving them a certificate saying that they should not have the injection. I am still suspended now almost five years later waiting for the decision of my last trial which finished on the 16 June. The medical board is attempting to prove that I am guilty of professional misconduct and a danger to the Australian public.

I am one of four doctors who have been suspended for this in Victoria because we all stood up for this violation of one of the most basic of human rights the right to be fully informed of your medical treatment and the right to refuse this treatment if you don’t want it.

Dr Luke McLindon, Catholic, a specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist specialising in fertility treatment at the Catholic Mater Hospital in Brisbane, in an affidavit to the Supreme court QLD found that 73% of his patients that were vaccinated within 6 weeks of conception against COVID had miscarriages compared with 13% of the patients that had not been vaccinated immediately prior to or just after conception. He was sacked by the hospital in June 2022 and has been unable to work in medicine since. He told me that the Mater hospital was the only public Catholic hospital in Australia, offering tubal surgery restore fertility; these are no longer offered and patients are now told “there’s only IVF”, as cost is a significant barrier.

Several other doctors throughout Australia have been suspended for comments they made about COVID in social media or in the mainstream media, or they were sacked from their jobs because they refused to have the COVID injections.

Implications for Catholic doctors

These laws are contrary to fundamental Catholic teaching regarding the right to life, and to live according to the truths of the Catholic faith. Even if you are not Catholic, these laws are against the natural law. The Hippocratic oath from 500 BC contained fundamentals precepts: first do not harm, do not prescribe or administer a poison, do not procure an abortion and there must be confidentiality between the physician and patient; the term “patient” derives from the Latin patientem: “suffering”.

Catholic doctors and doctors who follow the natural law cannot assist patients to kill themselves. We should not stand by and not give a good counter argument to a woman who wants to abort their child and certainly not be complicit in abortion. We should not comply with giving a medical treatment the patient is forced into accepting because they believe it is dangerous or against their beliefs, or that we think may be dangerous for them and but recommended it to the patient because the government says it is so. On the other hand if we do not do these doctors are not able to practice medicine in our society.

What can be done?

As I said at the outset I contend these are all examples of conscription of medical services by the state governments and, because they must be paid for by Medicare, which is an Australian government agency, is in contravention to section 51xxiii(A) of the Australian continent Constitution, which prohibits “any form” of conscription of medical services.

This amendment to the Constitution was brought in by the Robert Menzies in 1946, in the context of the then recent Nuremberg medical trials which punished doctors who performed forced experimental medical treatment.

Although it may be sometime before we can use the Constitution to rectify the situation logically, it should be possible if there is sufficient public opinion to push things towards this end.

The main purpose of my talk is to raise public awareness of the current state of affairs so that people can form an understanding of how we got to the situation, which is completely untenable and unacceptable, and then take steps to change it.

Dr Mark Hobart, MBBS.
30 July 2026

Dr. Mark Hobart is an Australian GP in the state of Victoria, who was unjustly targeted for his stance against government overreach during the COVID pandemic. When it became known that he was writing exemptions from the mandatory, experimental mRNA vaccines, Dr. Hobart’s clinic, located in the Melbourne western suburb of Sunshine, was raided by the authorities and he subsequently was suspended from practising medicine. 

ENDNOTES

  1. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/abortion-law-reform-act-2008/005 ↩︎
  2. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/equal-opportunity-act-2010/032 ↩︎
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11063965/ ↩︎
  4. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/voluntary-assisted-dying-act-2017/006 ↩︎
  5. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/crimes-act-1958/321 ↩︎
  6. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/voluntary-assisted-dying-act-2017/006 ↩︎
  7. https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/COVID-19/Vaccination-immunisation-information ↩︎
euthanasia

Europeans call for elderly euthanasia

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

EU-backed groups promoted an international right to assisted suicide and government-sanctioned euthanasia programs in negotiations of a new legally binding UN treaty on the rights of older persons last week.

By Kelly Heilman, J.D.  at C-Fam

The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons, tasked with drafting the new treaty, held the first consultation on the content and scope of the treaty last week. While most governments focused on protections against age discrimination and neglect, non-governmental groups funded by the European Union called for the treaty to include controversial obligations related to “sexual and reproductive rights,” DEI, gender ideology, and even the “right to die with dignity.”

The EU-funded non-governmental organization AGE Platform Europe criticized the fact that assisted suicide is usually seen as a “taboo” subject. They called for more “open discussion” and the incorporation of research conducted by the World Health Organization.

The Americas National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) Network, representing a range of human rights institutions, also funded by the European Union and the UN system, called for the treaty to include “reproductive rights” and “the right to die with dignity.” They also said the treaty should adopt an “intersectional approach.” This approach integrates woke gender and DEI priorities across all policy areas.

The negotiations are taking place against the background of highly charged political debates in several countries. France recently legalized euthanasia and has been heavily criticized for not adopting sufficient safeguards for disabled, elderly, or mentally impaired individuals. The Labour government in the United Kingdom tried to pass a euthanasia law last year, but it stalled after disability advocates raised concerns. At the same time, countries where euthanasia is already legal, including Canada, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands, are increasingly coming under fire for allowing assisted suicide for children, the elderly, and disabled persons, and persons only diagnosed with depression.

The World Health Organization does not oppose assisted suicide. It quietly accepts it without actively promoting it. WHO promotes the notion of “death with dignity” instead. Even though it is the same term used by euthanasia advocates, WHO says “death with dignity” refers to palliative care to help manage pain in all contexts regardless of the legal status of euthanasia.

Some disability rights groups are not aware of the dangers of including ambiguous “death with dignity” provisions in the new treaty. Others assume that the treaty will allow euthanasia in some form as part of the “death with dignity” provision, much like the WHO approach.

“Where medical assistance in dying exists, eligibility must rest on the fact that the person is dying, never on disability or old age,” Inclusion Canada said. However, while claiming to protect those with disabilities or mental illness, they also said: “no advance document may authorize ending a person’s life without contemporaneous consent.” In other words, with consent, care, and support, older people can readily consider death as an option.

The new treaty has been discussed as a possibility for close to two decades. Disability groups support the treaty to add further safeguards against ageism, exclusion, and discrimination in international law. They say the treaty must treat older persons as full rights holders rather than passive recipients of care.

The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons will continue to hold consultations for the next two years. The working group is expected to provide an initial draft of the treaty by the end of the consultations.

by Kelly Heilman, J.D. at C-Fam. The Centre for Family & Human Rights was founded in the summer of 1997 in order to monitor and affect the social policy debate at the United Nations and other international institutions. C-Fam is a non-partisan, non-profit research institute dedicated to reestablishing a proper understanding of international law, protecting national sovereignty and the dignity of the human person.

assisted-suicide

Assisted-suicide bill returns to UK Parliament amid renewed opposition

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

U.K. lawmakers will debate again whether to grant terminally ill adults a legal right to end their lives, following a fresh legislative push that has drawn fierce condemnation from Christian leaders and medical professionals. The previous Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would have allowed terminally ill adults with six months or fewer to live to receive assisted-suicide under specified safeguards. The legislation stalled after extensive amendments and procedural delays in the House of Lords prevented it from advancing before the parliamentary session ended May 13.

by Chris Eyte  for Christian Daily

Labour MP Kim Leadbeater introduced that initial private member’s bill, which cleared the House of Commons in June 2025. Once it reached the Lords, the legislation faced hundreds of proposed amendments, sparking prolonged debate.

Lauren Edwards, the Labour MP for Rochester and Strood, confirmed in a statement on June 14 that she will reintroduce the identical bill. While Edwards stated she does not intend to invoke the Parliament Acts — a rare constitutional mechanism that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords — opponents argue she is using the possibility of the mechanism to pressure the upper chamber to approve the legislation.Stay informed with The Christian Daily NewsletterSign up

Edwards called the progression of her private member’s bill a “great privilege.”

“This long overdue change to the law was supported by MPs during the last session of Parliament and was prevented from passing only by the decision of a minority in the House of Lords to talk it out and stop it coming to a vote,” Edwards said.

Claiming it is a “fundamental democratic principle” that the elected House of Commons should decide British law, Edwards argued that lawmakers owe a final decision to terminally ill people and their families.

“And I believe it undermines public trust in our democracy more widely if we cannot deliver on a measure that is supported by a very large majority of voters in all parts of the country,” Edwards added that MPs across all parties weighed the evidence carefully. “They considered the evidence presented during the lengthy committee sessions, consulted their constituents and listened to those with personal experience of the injustice and cruelty in the law as it now stands.”

Edwards said MPs did not take the decision lightly, reminding the House of Lords that its constitutional role is to “revise legislation not to block it.”

“It was rightly described as the safest and most robust assisted dying law anywhere in the world,” Edwards said. “And it still is. If MPs pass it again, as I believe they will, it will go back to the Lords who will then be asked to finish the job they should have completed earlier this year.”

However, Christian organizations, healthcare alliances and disability advocates reacted swiftly to condemn the revived bill.

Gordon Macdonald, chief executive officer of Care Not Killing — a prominent alliance of church groups, healthcare professionals and disability rights organizations — expressed deep disappointment over what he termed an “illogical and ideological” decision.

“We are obviously disappointed by this decision to bring back a deeply flawed bill,” Macdonald said. “A bill that was so riddled with errors not a single doctors’ group or disabled group supported it. A bill that even before it went to committee in the Commons saw an important safeguard removed, namely the High Court overseeing each application.”

Macdonald warned that rushing such complex, technical legislation would force vulnerable people to “pay the price with their lives.” He cited a Whitestone Insight poll showing that 60 percent of the public oppose cutting parliamentary scrutiny short to force the bill through via the Parliament Acts, including a majority of Edwards’ own constituents.

“Indeed, only 34 percent of the electorate voted for Labour at the last election, so the Labour MP would be wrong to suggest that the Labour government has a democratic mandate to support the bill being forced through,” Macdonald pointed out.

The Christian Institute also issued a statement opposing the new attempt, arguing that the high volume of amendments tabled by peers was necessary given the poor quality of the initial text.

“Despite activists’ claims, the House of Lords did not table countless amendments to Leadbeater’s Bill out of mere ‘delay tactics,’” said Angus Saul, head of communications for The Christian Institute. “Peers emphasised over and again that the Bill was ‘full of holes’ and had not received due diligence and proper pre-legislative scrutiny. Instead of bringing back this horrific Bill, MPs need to ensure that all can access high-quality palliative care.”

Meanwhile, Right To Life UK warned that forcing the bill through would spark a civil war within the ruling Labour Party. Alisdair Hungerford-Morgan, chief executive officer of Right To Life UK, urged Edwards to change course and introduce a less divisive piece of legislation.

“Using the Parliament Acts to force through a controversial Private Members’ Bill that was not in the government’s election manifesto would be unprecedented and unacceptable,” Hungerford-Morgan said.

“Given the slim majority with which Kim Leadbeater’s Bill passed the House of Commons last year, this opposition, combined with the many flaws in the Bill exposed by experts in the House of Lords, means the Bill would very likely fail even if it were revived.”

By Chris Eyte. Republished from Christian Daily under a Creative Commons license. Christian Daily International provides biblical, factual and personal news, stories and perspectives from every region, focusing on religious freedom, integrated gospel and other issues that are relevant to the global Church today.

assisted suicide

Locked-in syndrome patient: ‘I would 100 per cent reject assisted suicide’

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

Even patients living with serious disabilities are choosing life over assisted suicide, shining a light on the intrinsic value of all human existence.

from The Christian Institute.

A man with locked-in syndrome has raised concern about people ending their lives in response to a difficult diagnosis.

Bram Harrison, who has been paralysed since he fell off his bicycle in 1998, told journalist Matt Rudd that if he were asked about assisted suicide: “The answer, for the record, would be 100 per cent life.”

But the 48-year-old said that in the early years of his condition, “there is no way on earth I would have been capable of such a decision”.

Life

Bram communicates with his eyes, and he admitted that he is scared “when I think of the countless times I have been misunderstood”.

“Maybe there are safeguards in place but who’s to say how future governments might twist a law to suit a particular situation in the future?”

Also, Dawn Webster, who is 53 years old, became locked-in two weeks after giving birth. She explained that past periods of depression have been helped by changes in care policy.

Although one such change was later reversed, she emphasised that “you keep going, moment to moment, because despite everything that was thrown at you, you are alive”.

Meaning

Last year, neuroscientist Shannan Keen published the book ‘Giving a Voice to Those Living with Locked-In Syndrome’, which features contributions from Bram and other patients.

She said that it was fascinating to read how “his life had unfolded; what happened, how he’d been before he had his accident, the feelings that he had during his recovery, and how he’s managed to move forward with his life and create a really meaningful life for himself”.

The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

The form you have selected does not exist.

assisted suicide

Young Australian woman is planning her doctor-assisted suicide

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

The 26-year-old Australian woman with a life-limiting illness has announced plans to end her life sometime this year. Although she was once against assisted suicide, she changed her mind after becoming ill. Of your charity, please spare a prayer for Annaliese, that she may reconsider her decision and learn of God’s unlimited love for her and of the redemptive power of suffering.

by Kathy Clubb. This article first appeared at LifeSiteNews.

A 26-year-old Australian woman with a life-limiting illness has announced plans to end her life via assisted suicide sometime this year.

It’s impossible to hear the story of Annaliese Holland and not be sympathetic to her plight. Annaliese suffers from a devastating condition called Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (AAG), which has left her in constant pain and unable to process solid food. Many of her organs have shut down and she has a permanent line into her heart for sustenance. Although AAG is not terminal in every case, since Annaliese was diagnosed later in life, the delay in treatment means she could die within a year.

Annaliese has stated that prior to her diagnosis with AAG eight years ago, she had been against assisted suicide, but her views changed after meeting another AAG patient, Lily Thai. Annaliese recalls that the girls encouraged one another with the thought of going to heaven and being able to eat again.

They were close friends until Lily took her life in 2023 under the newly-passed voluntary assisted dying (VAD) legislation in their home state of South Australia. Annaliese says that the experience of holding her friend’s hand as she was put to death made her see assisted suicide as an option for the first time.

Earlier in her illness, Annaliese did not raise the issue of assisted suicide in her public statements, focusing instead on good palliative care and raising awareness of the hospice system. In fact, Annaliese once cited actor Michael J. Fox as being an inspiration to her; Fox has lived for 35 years with the neurodegenerative condition, Parkinson’s disease.

Under South Australian law, medical professionals are prohibited from initiating a discussion about VAD, so since the death of her friend, Annaliese has used her own experience as a way of promoting assisted suicide. Her social media channels chronicle the gruelling daily regime which keeps her alive – for now. Injections, feeding tubes, and frequent hospital visits are all documented online. She describes her version of a bucket list, sharing posts about her completing various experiences such as witnessing a birth, holding a baby, and “getting married,” albeit without a groom.

Annaliese’s story adds to the prominent and very positive treatment of assisted suicide by the Australian media. This has been amplified by the recent death of popular radio host, James Valentine. Valentine, a long-time advocate of VAD, chose to end his own life after battling oesophageal cancer for two years. Following his death, his family released a statement which read: “Throughout his illness, James did it his way, which lasted all the way until the end. Both he and his family are grateful he was given the option to go out on his own terms.”

Annaliese echoes those same sentiments, telling an interviewer, “At 21, I realised I was terminal. At 26, I’m choosing to die on my own terms.”

Annaliese’s choice to take her own life is given a further gloss of legitimization by interviews with the doctor who will be assisting with her death, Dr. Chloe Furst. In Annaliese’s own words, Furst is “passionate and loving” and a “beautiful human.” Many would not agree, believing that a doctor who encourages and helps a patient to kill herself is morally guilty of murder.

Both Annaliese and Furst recently received a joint “Woman of the Year” award from a media outlet based in their home town of Adelaide, South Australia. This award further cements the idea in the public’s mind that assisted suicide is a laudable and “brave” decision.

Describing medical professions who are opposed to assisted suicide, Furst says that someone’s “own  moral objection shouldn’t infringe on someone else’s opportunity to access [VAD].”

Annaliese agrees, explaining her experience with doctors who are opposed to euthanasia:

I had a bit of a fight with a few doctors about it because not everyone believes in it. But it’s something that needs to be spoken about and needs to be brought up because it is a choice and no-one’s saying you have to do it.

Although her positive outlook is itself inspirational in many ways, it is a great tragedy that this young woman feels she must cut her life short. Likewise, it is tragic that her family is allowing her to choose VAD, apparently without any objections. She says her father “understands” and her mother, while saying she “hopes for a miracle,” also says she is realistic about her daughter’s prognosis.

This stands in contrast to the case of the young Spanish woman, Noelia Castillo Ramos, who opted for assisted suicide despite her father fighting for years to stop her premature death. Noelia’s best friend attempted at the last moment to get her to reconsider, but was blocked by hospital staff. Strangers from the pro-life community who heard about her decision held a silent vigil at the hospital as she died. It is tragic that there seems to be no-one willing to challenge Annaliese Holland in her bid to commit suicide.

Read the rest at LifeSiteNews

assisted suicide

UK’s assisted suicide legislation has fallen! Or has it?

Published on by EF Team1 Comment

Angus Saul of the Christian Institute writes that although the UK’s proposed assisted suicide law has failed this time around, its permanent rejection can’t be taken for granted.

Today was the final day of scheduled debate for Kim Leadbeater’s assisted suicide Bill, and, as we have known for some time, there were too many issues with the legislation for it to make it through the House of Lords before it was timed out. As such, it will officially fall at the end of the Parliamentary session next week.

For 18 months, we have been briefing MPs and Peers about the Bill, as well as communicating to our supporters how dangerous it would be, and letting them know how they could help. Many of you got in touch with politicians on several occasions, and we know from what has been said in Parliament that communications from supporters like you have helped to change people’s minds. If that was you, thank you for being a Christian influence on this life and death issue.

But we cannot rest on our laurels, because we know Dignity in Dying, Kim Leadbeater, and other parliamentarians of a similar persuasion, are very keen for legislation on assisted suicide to be passed, and they are already planning how to revive this legislation.

How can that happen?

Private Member’s Bills

There are a variety of tactics pro-assisted suicide politicians could choose, but the most likely way will be to bring forward another Private Member’s Bill.

Any MP can enter the ballot to bring forward a Bill, with over 400 entering each parliamentary session, but only 20 are selected. The majority of these will only get a very short amount of time in Parliament, and are used merely to highlight issues, rather than being serious attempts to change the law. In practice, an MP must rank in the top five or six in the ballot to have any chance of their proposal becoming law.

Given that Government business always takes precedence over Private Member’s Bills, usually only simple, tightly-worded Bills aimed at addressing a specific, narrow issue, can make it through the parliamentary process in the limited time available. Kim Leadbeater came top of the ballot last session, meaning she had the maximum time available of any Private Member’s Bill. But even with the particularly long parliamentary session, she was unable to push through the deeply complex and controversial legislation.

This makes the process problematic for any new assisted suicide Bill. While there are certainly a number of MPs who are strongly in favour of assisted suicide, they would need to place perhaps in the top two or three in the ballot, given that the legislation is likely to need a lot of time due to its complexities.

Parliament Acts

The process could be hurried along though if the Parliament Acts were invoked, and this is something that Lord Falconer, co-sponsor to Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, has threatened.

In a nutshell, a new Bill would have to be more or less identical to the Bill that was voted through by the House of Commons in June 2025, though it may incorporate some amendments that have been made by the House of Lords since. If MPs vote in favour of it, and then Peers try to reject or change it, the Commons can bypass the House of Lords and push through a virtually unchanged Bill.

However, this too is complicated and carries a high level of risk for supporters of the new Bill. Because if any changes are made by MPs at Committee Stage, then the Bill would no longer qualify under the Parliament Acts, and so it would still face the same level of scrutiny in the House of Lords and could be changed or rejected by them. But if no changes are made, the legislation would be less likely to be passed by MPs again, given the huge flaws that have been highlighted by the House of Lords. Many MPs only voted to send the Leadbeater Bill to the House of Lords because they expected Peers to make amendments to improve the workability and safeguards.

We should expect pro-assisted suicide MPs to attempt a number of different strategies to try to force something onto the statute book, and so we must continue to pray and to contact our MPs.

by Angus Saul of the Christian Institute. The Christian Institute exists for “the furtherance and promotion of the Christian religion in the United Kingdom and elsewhere” and “the advancement of education”. It is a nondenominational Christian charity with more than 60,000 supporters throughout the UK, including more than 5,000 churches and is committed to upholding the sanctity of life from conception.

euthanasia

Death as a way out: a tragic euthanasia precedent in Spain

Published on by EF TeamLeave a comment

At the time of publishing, the young woman in question had already been killed by euthanasia and her organs harvested. This was a tragedy of epic proportions which was totally unavoidable, had Neolia Ramos been given the support she deserved.

by Jennifer Diaz at Evangelical Focus

Noelia Castillo Ramos is a 25-year-old woman from Barcelona, Spain, who will end her life through euthanasia on 26 March, after a long legal battle. Her controversial case has attracted widespread media attention in Spain.

The last few years of Noelia’s life have been marked by intense pain. She was diagnosed with BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) at a young age, a serious condition that causes emotional instability, a profound sense of emptiness and fantasies of self-harm.

She has been under state guardianship since the age of 13. Due to their limited financial situation, her parents have had to rely on public resources for her care.

In 2022, she was raped, the details of which remain largely unknown. This traumatic event was the breaking point in her life. Afterwards, she attempted suicide by jumping from a fifth-floor window. She survived, but was left paraplegic.

Since then, she has had to use a wheelchair and take different medications to relieve the pain. Although these medications are effective, they cause her severe side effects.

After conducting several mental capacity tests and treatments, the psychiatrists who treated Noelia concluded that, despite her BPD, she was capable of making decisions about her life and death.

However, her story portrays profound pain, traumatic events and a BPD diagnosis, which at least partially clouds the autonomy attributed to her by the doctors, since BPD can severely affect a person’s emotions and undoubtedly impact decision-making.

In 2023, a discharge report concluded that Noelia was medically stable and her physical pain was under control. Nevertheless, despite all her father’s efforts to change her mind, on 10 April 2024 she officially requested euthanasia from the Catalan Commission for the Guarantee and Evaluation of Rights.

Just a couple of months later, on 18 July 2024, the commission accepted the request.

Noelia gave a final television interview before her death, in which she reaffirmed her decision to end her life with the support of her mother, although the latter made it clear that she did not want this ending for her daughter either.

The family is actually divided on the issue. Her father sought help from the Christian lawyers association, arguing that Noelia was not psychologically capable of making that decision. Against his wishes, the process continues.

This case sets a dangerous precedent in Spanish society, suggesting that a life of extreme suffering is no longer “worthy” of being lived.

Ours is a failed state that allows its citizens to resort to death not only for physical pain, but also for mental illness, as in Noelia’s case.

The 2021 Organic Law regulating euthanasia in Spain was originally approved for people suffering from a chronic, incurable illness that causes significant pain. This was based on the new individual right, namely the autonomy to exercise freedom over one’s own life and death.

Between June 2021 and mid 2025, euthanasia has been applied to 1,034 people in Spain. 

But, as anticipated, there is currently no clear definition of what constitutes this type of painful illness. This case raises the question: Do depression, various personality disorders and borderline personality disorder fall under this category? The answer seems to be yes.

We look with concern to a future that already seems dystopian, because depression is currently spreading throughout the world like a pandemic, and Spain is one of the countries with the highest suicide rates among young people.

Can the solution to this mental health crisis be entrusted to the state? Does society have the necessary tools to respond to profound suffering? Noelia’s case suggests it does not.

The state is making a serious mistake by believing that the dignity of life can be defined in terms of suffering.

It would be wise to view with suspicion this law based on the right to personal autonomy, which ignores that life is not the absolute private property of the individual, but rather has an origin and purpose that transcend the person.

God breathed the breath of life into Noelia, created her and was pleased to see her born, so that she might know Him and find the meaning of her life in Him.

Noelia’s pain is real and her desire to end her suffering is legitimate and entirely understandable. However, even though she is broken inside and has lost the will to live, Noelia was made in the image of God. Her life has incalculable value.

This is a heartbreaking story that should move us deeply. We live in a time of a total loss of the value of human life, where people have become disposable consumer goods. Society was unable to restore hope to Noelia, and then offered her the quick way out, disguised as ‘dignified’: death.

That is quite the opposite of the message of the Gospel, which delves into the heart of suffering to redeem it — not necessarily to eliminate it. God can redeem a life, even in such extreme circumstances.

Job longed for death; Elijah cried out to God to take his life; but undoubtedly, the most extreme case of physical and emotional pain was suffered by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus is an expert in impossible causes; he is the Lord of those who seek him, of the brokenhearted; he is the comforter and the giver of hope.

The state surrendered too quickly with Noelia; God would never have done so, and neither should we surrender to the suffering of others by offering death as a solution.

This article first appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license.