No room for pollies' personal views in euthanasia debate

December 10, 2018

Whatever the opinion of the public, academics or medical professionals, QUT researchers say it will be politicians who decide on whether laws on euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying, are changed. Researchers from QUT's Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR) have published an article - Informing the Euthanasia Debate: Perceptions of Australian Politicians - in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on how politicians approach euthanasia and assisted suicide when they are voting on whether to pass a bill legalising such practices.

Led by Dr Andrew McGee, a senior law lecturer at QUT, their paper follows the recent passing of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 in Victoria, and covers a rarely examined perspective of the debate.

"EAS - which we use to cover both voluntary active euthanasia (VAS) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) - is increasingly the subject of ongoing political debate in Parliaments Australia-wide," said Dr McGee, whose co-authors were Dr Kelly Purser, Professor Ben White and Professor Lindy Willmott from the ACHLR, QUT law alumnus Christopher Stackpoole, winner of the 2018 Vinerian Scholarship from the University of Oxford, and QUT research assistant Juliet Davis.

"Yet there has been very little scrutiny of the political debates about it and the associated arguments that have been advanced for often staunchly defended political positions for or against reform.

"Our aim was to provide an evidence base about how politicians debate this vexed issue, which would assist scholars, activists, lobbyists, politicians and the wider community to engage more deeply in Australia's EAS debate and thereby facilitate the scrutiny and critical review to which our law-makers' discussions should be subject.

"We have not attempted to critically analyse the quality of the arguments nor the evidence upon which they are based. However, we did conclude that many of the arguments advanced by politicians on both sides of this debate are highly contentious.

"Consider, for example, the 'religious sanctity of life ' argument, or the secular 'suffering is ennobling' argument. Both of these arguments represent personal beliefs that not everybody in our community shares.

"Such 'Personal Matters' represent beliefs about which people can reasonably disagree. While some people might think that these provide decisive reasons against EAS, others will not believe this.

"We should ask: may parliament allow these 'Personal Matters' to serve as cogent grounds for not legalising EAS? In the end, legislation would apply to all people in the relevant community, and not just those who hold these particular views."

Dr McGee and his colleagues argue that while personal views should be represented in parliamentary debates, they should not form the basis for embracing or rejecting legislative change.

"If there is legislative change, like we have seen in Victoria, individuals are still free to reject euthanasia as an option for themselves based on their own personal beliefs," he said.

"Other politicians go down the 'Public Matters' track. For example, they might argue that vulnerable people can't be protected - these play out as the 'slippery slope' and 'social risk' arguments.

"Parliament has a legitimate interest in protecting vulnerable people; so concerns about the adequacy of safeguards and about possible slippery slopes are legitimate concerns for the state to entertain.

"The role of the Parliament is to balance the competing claims of those who wish to avail themselves of EAS, and of other people who could be adversely affected if the law is changed.

"Efforts must be made to ensure that such Public Matters are at the forefront of the debate about EAS and that the views taken about them are informed by the latest peer-reviewed research.

"The issue will remain contentious. However it would represent enormous progress in these debates if these are the matters on which parliaments focused most of their attention, leaving the 'Personal Matters' behind and not advancing them to justify laws that will bind everyone.

"With this in mind, it may be that a conscience vote is not the optimal way in which parliaments should decide whether to legalise EAS.

"In saying that, we fully expect the trend of holding a conscience vote on the issue is likely to continue. Therefore we believe that members of Parliament should do their utmost to leave 'Personal Matters' out of the debate."
The full paper is available to read online via the University of New South Wales Law Journal.

Media contact:

Amanda Weaver, QUT Media, 07 3138 3151,

After hours: Rose Trapnell, 0407 585 901,

Queensland University of Technology

Related Euthanasia Articles from Brightsurf:

Scientists invent animal-free testing of lethal neurotoxins
Animal testing will no longer be required to assess a group of deadly neurotoxins, thanks to University of Queensland-led research.

Science wages a battle against the swine sector's costliest virus
A research team at the University of Córdoba has compared the behavior of two different strains of the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus, to expedite the production of an effective vaccine in the future.

New scientific model can predict moral and political development
A study from a Swedish team of researchers recently published in the social science journal Nature Human Behaviour answers several critical questions on how public opinion changes on moral issues.

When working with animals can hurt your mental health
While it might sound like fun to work around pets every day, veterinarians and people who volunteer at animal shelters face particular stressors that can place them at risk for depression, anxiety and even suicide, according to research presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association.

Law backs doctors who prescribe opioids to the dying
Some doctors fear litigation and professional ruin if they are seen to have overprescribed opioids to terminally ill patients, according to a University of Queensland researcher.

African mole-rats immune to 'wasabi pain'
A new report in Science provides the first evidence of a mammal -- the highveld mole-rat -- being immune to pain from exposure to allyl isothiocyanate, or AITC, the active ingredient of wasabi.

Otago ethicist shines light on lack of discussion about body donation after euthanasia
As New Zealand considers a bill looking to legalise euthanasia, an Otago University ethicist considers it's time to shine the light on the ethical complications surrounding body donation and assisted dying.

Ethical questions raised on body donation after medically assisted death
There are issues about the appropriateness of accepting or using MAID body donations; communication with donors including consenting processes, and the transparency surrounding MAID donation with staff, faculty and students.

No room for pollies' personal views in euthanasia debate
Whatever the opinion of the public, academics or medical professionals, QUT researchers say it will be politicians who decide on whether laws on euthanasia, or voluntary assisted dying, are changed.

Study examines aspects of conscientious objection among nurses
One-on-one interviews with eight nurses in Ontario revealed that nurses making conscientious objections to ethically relevant policies lack concrete supports and need protection in healthcare practice settings.

Read More: Euthanasia News and Euthanasia Current Events is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to