In Australia, a pressing debate is unfolding over how terminally ill patients can access voluntary assisted dying (VAD) services.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has issued a compelling plea to the next federal government, urging a revision of the criminal code to permit doctors to offer VAD advice through telehealth, email, or phone consultations.
This change, they argue, would significantly improve access for some of the nation’s most vulnerable individuals, particularly those in rural areas or those too frail to travel.
At present, a legal barrier stands in the way. Introduced in 2005 to combat cyberbullying, the criminal code prohibits the use of a “carriage service” to promote suicide.
A Federal Court ruling in 2023 clarified that this restriction extends to VAD discussions, meaning doctors who provide such guidance remotely could face prosecution.
This creates a stark inequity: while every Australian state has legalised VAD since Victoria led the way in 2019, the means to access it remain unevenly distributed.
The AMA’s president, Danielle McMullen, has highlighted the human cost of this limitation. For patients in remote regions, the journey to a city-based clinic might be unfeasible.
Similarly, those weakened by illness may find even short trips impossible. “The next government must ensure that eligible patients, wherever they live, can plan their end-of-life care on their own terms,” she said.
The organisation’s position reflects widespread consultation with its members, regional branches, and bodies like Palliative Care Australia.
This is not a new concern. In 2024, independent MP Kate Chaney tabled a private member’s bill to amend the law, but it failed to gain traction in federal parliament.
Meanwhile, the landscape of VAD has evolved rapidly. Following Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, and South Australia have all enacted laws to allow it.
The Australian Capital Territory will join them in late 2025, leaving the Northern Territory as the sole holdout. Yet, without federal reform, the promise of choice remains out of reach for many.
The AMA stresses that any change must sit alongside robust support for palliative care. Dr McMullen insists that no patient should feel compelled to pursue VAD due to a lack of quality alternatives.
“Governments must properly fund palliative care across Australia,” she said, underscoring the importance of preserving doctors’ rights to conscientiously object to VAD. This balanced approach seeks to honour both patient autonomy and professional integrity.
For rural Australians, the stakes are particularly high. Telehealth has long been hailed as a lifeline for those far from medical hubs, yet its potential remains untapped in this context.
Without reform, the gap between legal rights and practical access will persist, leaving some to suffer in silence. As the nation approaches its next election, the question looms: will the incoming government act to bridge this divide? The AMA, and many Australians, hope so.
