A private member’s bill currently before the New South Wales Parliament has ignited fierce controversy by proposing changes to voluntary assisted dying laws that could force terminally ill residents of aged care homes to leave their facilities to access the service.
Introduced by Liberal Member of the Legislative Council Susan Carter, the legislation aims to extend protections to residential aged care providers, allowing them to opt out of hosting the process on site while requiring them to arrange alternatives elsewhere. Critics, including medical specialists and legal experts, argue the move undermines compassionate end-of-life care and risks breaching federal regulations.
Voluntary assisted dying became available in New South Wales in late 2023, marking the final state to legalise the option for eligible adults facing intolerable suffering from terminal illnesses.
The scheme emphasises patient autonomy, with safeguards ensuring requests are voluntary and well considered. Since its rollout, it has been praised for providing a dignified pathway for those in profound distress, such as individuals battling advanced neurodegenerative conditions. However, the new bill seeks to amend the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 to mirror rules for public hospitals, where facilities can refuse to administer the service but must facilitate transfers.
Under the proposed changes, aged care homes, many of which are run by faith-based organisations, would gain the right to decline involvement in the final stages of voluntary assisted dying. Instead, they would need to coordinate off-site options, potentially involving transport to another location for the administration of the lethal medication.
Proponents, including a coalition of 12 cross-party sponsors from the Liberal Party and minor groups, contend this balances institutional freedoms with access rights. Carter has described the measure as essential for giving providers the autonomy they currently lack, insisting it aligns practices across health settings without impeding overall availability.
Opposition Leader Mark Speakman has lent his support, framing the bill as a fair middle ground that respects residents’ timing preferences while shielding facilities from unwanted participation. Among the co-sponsors are prominent figures such as former Liberal ministers Anthony Roberts and Damien Tudehope, alongside independents like Mark Latham and representatives from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party.
Faith-based aged care groups have welcomed the initiative, viewing it as a safeguard against coercion in environments rooted in ethical objections to euthanasia.
Yet the proposal has drawn sharp rebukes from advocates for patient rights and end-of-life experts. Dr John Ward, a respected geriatrician recognised in 2024 as New South Wales Senior Australian of the Year for his dedication to elderly and vulnerable patients, has labelled the idea profoundly inhumane.
Drawing from his experience referring patients to the voluntary assisted dying process, Ward highlights the emotional bonds between residents and staff in aged care settings, where homes function as surrogate families. He warns that mandating relocations would introduce unnecessary barriers during an already distressing time, potentially violating human rights principles embedded in recent federal aged care reforms.
Legal scrutiny has intensified the backlash. Senior counsel Arthur Moses, whose opinion was commissioned by the Legalise Cannabis Party, asserts the bill clashes with Commonwealth obligations under the Aged Care Act 1997. These require providers to honour residents’ expressed wishes for palliative and terminal care options, including voluntary assisted dying.
Moses predicts the legislation, if enacted, would invite a constitutional showdown in the High Court, rendering it unenforceable. New South Wales MP Jeremy Buckingham echoed this, urging parliamentarians to halt proceedings amid risks of discrimination, particularly for those in remote or regional areas where transport logistics could prove insurmountable.
Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich, who spearheaded the original voluntary assisted dying laws in 2021, has called for the bill’s outright withdrawal. He points to the absence of prior consultation on its legality, which has sown division within the Liberal ranks and heightened fears among aged care communities of eviction-like scenarios. Greenwich argues state measures cannot override entrenched federal protections, describing the push as divisive and poorly vetted.
Perhaps an amendment to this proposed Act could include the requirement that Age Care Facilities seeking to use this legislation should prominently display in all their Documentation that “…..,Voluntary Assisted Dying is not available in this facility..,,,”
At least then older people can choose if they want to live somewhere they cannot die.
I believe that a provider currently has the ability to meet the law as it is.
The aged care system is built around the person, their choices and decision making.
When a person is choosing their residential care home, the vision mission and values statements should be the primary documents that introduce the philosophies of the organisation and services.
It should be clear to the reader so that their choices and decision is either aligned or not. This would also reflect the people and culture aspects of the services workforce.
These homes and services must be espoused to provide quality healthcare that now have strong standards of monitoring and compliance.
This is complex work at the same time as building relationships between employees and residents that are facing their end of life journeys in an environment that is warm and nurturing and supportive during difficult times.
There is a law in place for people to choose, they have the right to choose the environment and people they wish to support their decisions. It’s not that complicated