The issue at stake is whether euthanasia consultations should be considered as assisting with another’s death, as prohibited under the Federal Criminal Code, or as a medical procedure that is legal in some states and territories of Australia. In response to an application from Melbourne GP Nicholas Carr, the Federal Court of Australia ruled that online euthanasia consultations should be considered as suicide under the law. In this context, suicide refers to the intentional taking of one’s own life, regardless of the circumstances in which that occurs.
This ruling means that it is illegal to provide someone with information on euthanasia—whether through telehealth, a phone call, or email—that could encourage them to take their own life, even if it is legal under state law. Dr. Carr argued that voluntary assisted dying laws recognize that harm does not apply in the same way and that the Criminal Code would undermine state and territory laws, as well as contradict a law that says the Commonwealth should not exclude or limit state and territory power. However, Justice Wendy Abraham rejected these arguments, stating that the ordinary and natural meaning of the law should apply without a specific definition of suicide in the Criminal Code.
The Attorney-General, representing the respondent to the application, has said that the government will consider the court’s judgment. However, some states have opposed the ruling, with Victoria and Queensland calling on the federal government to amend the Criminal Code to allow patients access to voluntary assisted dying information by phone or teleconference.
This ruling has raised concerns among medical professionals and officials in relation to assisting patients in end-of-life choices and has sparked a debate over how euthanasia laws should be interpreted and enforced. Former Senator Eric Abetz has expressed concerns that euthanasia laws could give rise to a slippery slope of abusive practices and legislation that may not be in the best interest of vulnerable individuals. Under the ruling, doctors can face criminal charges and a fine of up to $313,000 (100 penalty units) if found guilty.