398 people killed by euthanasia and assisted suicide in New South Wales Australia.

The Australian Care Alliance published a report on the First Annual Euthanasia Report in New South Wales Australia which indicated that 398 people died by euthanasia and assisted suicide (November 28, 2023 to June 30, 2024). It is concerning, in the last four months of the report (March 1, 2024 - June 30, 2024) 267 people were reported to have died by euthanasia and assisted suicide representing 1.33% of all deaths in that period.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide became legal in New South Wales on November 28, 2023, when the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2022 came into operation.

Euthanasia and assistance to suicide

The Act provides for the Voluntary Assisted Dying Board, which it established as an “agent of the Crown”, to issue a “a voluntary assisted dying substance authority” to a medical practitioner to prescribe a lethal poison either for the purpose of the patient named in the authority ingesting the poison in order to cause the person’s own death (suicide) or for the lethal poison to be administered to the person by a medical or nurse practitioner (euthanasia).

The number of deaths

An Interim Report covering November 28, 2023 - February 29, 2024 reports that 131 people had their lives ended under the Act. – 91 (69.5%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 40 (30.5%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner. This represented 0.95% of all deaths in NSW in the three months December 2023-February 2024 – almost 50% higher (46.1%) than the rate in Victoria after four years of legalization. In 3 months, NSW ended the lives of the same number of people (131) as Victoria did in the first year of legalisation.

The first annual report covering 28 November 2023-30 June 2024 reports that 398 people had their lives ended under the Act - 315 (79.1%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 83 (20.9%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner.

An Interim Report covering 28 November 2023-29 February 2024 reports that 131 people had their lives ended under the Act. – 91 (69.5%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 40 (30.5%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner. This represented 0.95% of all deaths in NSW in the three months December 2023-February 2024 – almost 50% higher (46.1%) than the rate in Victoria after four years of legalization. In 3 months, NSW ended the lives of the same number of people (131) as Victoria did in the first year of legalisation.

The first annual report covering 28 November 2023-30 June 2024 reports that 398 people had their lives ended under the Act - 315 (79.1%) by receiving a lethal injection from a medical or nurse practitioner and 83 (20.9%) by ingesting a lethal substance prescribed by a medical practitioner.

The differences between Victoria and New South Wales euthanasia and assisted suicide deaths.

Firstly, in Victoria medical practitioners cannot suggest assisted suicide or euthanasia to a patient – the request has to come from the person whereas in NSW the option of euthanasia can be offered by a medical practitioner with no initial suggestion from the person that are considering this

Secondly, in Victoria administration of a lethal injection by the practitioner is only available if there is an identified issue with self-administration. In NSW death by practitioner administration can be freely chosen. Only 15% of Victorian cases involve practitioner administration – compared to 79.1% so far in NSW. International evidence indicates that overall rates are higher when euthanasia is freely on offer compared to jurisdictions where assisted suicide is the only or default option.

Underlying condition

The First Annual Report gives no details of the conditions involved in the 78 cases described as “other” conditions (that is, not cancer, neurodegenerative or respiratory conditions).

Prognosis

The eligibility criteria include a prognosis - determined by two medical practitioners neither of which need to have any specific qualification or experience in the relevant condition – on “the balance of probabilities” that death will occur within 6 months (or within 12 months for neuro-degenerative conditions).

The handbook prepared by NSW Health acknowledges that “predicting when a person is entering the final months of their life can be difficult”.

This means that there will inevitably be wrongful deaths of people who may have had years to live from errors in prognosis.

Curiously the NSW Health handbook states that a Board authority to prescribe will remain valid for six months (or 12 months in the case of a neurodegenerative disorder) but that the patient can wait a further six months from when the prescription is written to have it filled. So NSW Health is envisioning patients given a prognosis of six months to live still being alive 12 months after this prognosis has been given.

In the case of authority to suicide by prescribed poison there is not time limit on how long the supplied poison may be kept before it is ingested.

Decision-making capacity

The NSW Health handbook states: 

“In the event that a coordinating practitioner becomes aware that a patient has permanently lost decision-making capacity after supply of the voluntary assisted dying substance for self-administration, the substance must be returned and disposed of as the patient is no longer eligible for voluntary assisted dying.”

This admission points to a serious risk in the scheme set up under the Act. Once the final review is completed before the coordinating practitioner applies for an authority to prescribe the lethal poison for self-administration there are no further checks on a person’s decision-making capacity and no requirement for any further contact between the coordinating practitioner and the patient.

The person may well lose decision-making capacity before ingesting the lethal poison. In this case there is simply no protection and no way of ever knowing if the person was subsequently cajoled, bullied, tricked or even physically forced to ingest the lethal poison.

Agents

The Act provides for the collection of the lethal poison for self-administration from the pharmacy by an “agent” of the patient, without imposing any restrictions or qualifications – not even an age restriction – on who can be designated by the patient. The agent is authorised by the Act to collect and store the poison, and also to prepare it and supply it to the patient to ingest – but not to actually administer it to the patient. As there is no witness required to be present at the time the lethal poison is ingested, we will never know if agents (or others) breach this provision.

Homeless, prisoners and forensic mental health detainees

NSW Health is keen that no one miss out on access to euthanasia or assistance to suicide.

Its handbook suggests that “as a particularly vulnerable group” what the homeless need is a “respectful approach that honours their autonomy and treats them with genuine kindness at the end of life” by providing support if they request “assisted dying”. No hint is given in the handbook that the vulnerability of a homeless person may mean that any request for euthanasia or assistance to suicide is a desperate cry for real help.

NSW Health’s Policy Directive charges the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network with the task of making sure prisoners and those in forensic mental health detention don’t miss out on euthanasia or assistance to suicide by linking them with “authorised practitioners, and assist[ing] those services and practitioners with accessing the patient in appropriate settings and circumstances.”

Euthanasiasts everywhere

NSW Health’s Policy Directive mandates every Local Health District to “endeavour to have a sufficient number of authorised coordinating, consulting and administering practitioners within their services to support timely access to each step of the voluntary assisted dying process for patients”. It has been advertising full time jobs for medical practitioners to be employed solely to facilitate assistance to suicide and perform euthanasia.

No safe spaces

NSW Health has also issued “guidance” for private residential aged care and health facilities which reflects the Act’s ultimate refusal to allow any private facility to remain truly euthanasia and suicide free.

Even health facilities which are operated on the basis of an ethic which rejects euthanasia, must allow the State’s “care navigators” on to their premises to link up patients with doctors willing to kill them. In making a decision about whether transferring a patient out of the facility for euthanasia or assistance to suicide, the patient’s treating physician must consult with the patient’s “coordinating, consulting or administering practitioner”.

Australian assisted dying law forces religiously affiliated medical institutions to provide euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

New South Wales is the final Australian state to legalize euthanasia with a catch, the Voluntary Assisted Dying bill forces religiously affiliated medical institutions to provide euthanasia.

As stated by Michael Cook, the editor of Bioedge:

The new law will allow patients to choose between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Its provisions are more or less the same as the other states, but it does not allow institutions to refuse to allow their residents to have VAD, to the consternation of Catholic healthcare officials.

“This law will force organisations that do not agree with assisted dying to allow doctors onto their premises to prescribe and even administer restricted drugs with the intention of terminating a resident’s life – without even informing the facility,” said Brigid Meney, of Catholic Health Australia. “These laws ignore the rights of staff and residents who may choose to work and live in a particular residential facility because of their opposition to assisted dying.”

It is one thing to give doctors the right in law to kill their patients it is another issue when you force people who oppose the killing to participate.

Greg Donnelly, a Labor Member of the Legislative Council, who had proposed amendments, including conscience rights, to the legislation stated:

it was “utterly repugnant and draconian” to force facilities with moral objections to assisted suicide or euthanasia to allow the practices. Such provisions are “essentially an authoritarian imposition on what are, in our civil society, associations of people coming together for a purpose.”

Canada's euthanasia lobby has also launched a campaign to force religiously affiliated health care institutions to provide euthanasia.

The legislation will come into effect in 18 months.

NSW Australia Parliament debates 'assisted dying.'

This article was published by Bioedge on November 13, 2021

New South Wales Parliament

By Michael Cook

On Friday the Parliament of the Australian state of New South Wales began its debate on the controversial bill to legalise “voluntary assisted dying”. The outcome is still uncertain, but more speakers supported the bill on the first day than opposed it.

The debate was respectful but most of the MPs brought emotional stories of the deaths of loved ones to the attention of the house. Arguments ranged from “The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill 2021 is the most heinous piece of legislation ever introduced to this Parliament” (Dr Hugh McDermott) to “The bill offers a safe framework for patients whose death is imminent and whose pain and suffering has become unbearable to end that suffering at a time of their choosing” (Sonya Hornery).

Even if the bill passes in the Lower House, it is unlikely that it will become law this year. Before the Upper House votes, it will study the report of a committee which is currently gathering evidence.

Below are excerpts from the Premier, Dominic Perrottet, and the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Minns.

The Premier told the House that his own grandmother is dying at the moment from cancer and is in considerable pain. Nonetheless he said:

A strong society protects and cherishes its most fragile members. This debate today is not about the details of the bill that is in front of us. It is not about the strengths or weaknesses of the safeguards, or the rights of medical practitioners, or the technicalities of who qualifies and who does not. It is so much bigger than all of that. This debate is fundamentally about how we treat that precious thing called human life. Our answer to that question defines what kind of society we will be. This bill at its heart enshrines a new principle—that we can intentionally help terminate the lives of certain people to end their suffering.

Make no mistake, this is a culture-changing decision. Once we accept the principle of this bill, we cross a line and nothing will be the same as we will have started to define the value of life. It turns on its head a bedrock of our ethics—that we help, not hurt; that we offer hope, not harm. That is why every single member of this place needs to think very carefully about the ramifications of this bill because no safeguard can stand in the way of the fundamental shift we are contemplating here. [Former Prime Minister] Paul Keating called this our threshold moment “an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence”.

Chris Minns acknowledged that his point of view is not popular in his own Labor Party. However, he felt that legalisation is simply too dangerous:

I am not convinced that any legislation can prevent an individual choosing to die in response to pressure, coercion or duress caused by others. No legislation, even one crafted with the best of intentions like this bill, can prescribe against the conduct of people with bad intentions. Once we provide access to a voluntary assisted death, it is inevitable that some people will act to pressure another to end their life. That pressure may be overt. It may be the demand of an estranged child or a plea for respite from a dearly loved partner. It may be subtle, a suggestion, a hint, an overheard conversation or it may be deduced without a word being spoken by a vulnerable person watching the impact their illness is having on others who they love. The risk of those situations occurring is not far-fetched or exaggerated. In fact, that risk is acknowledged in the bill on the very first page.

Article: New South Wales euthanasia bill temporarily stopped (Link).

New South Wales euthanasia bill temporarily stopped.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This article was also published by Mercatornet on October 19, 2021.

NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet

The Australian state of New South Wales has just dodged a euthanasia bullet. It is the only state in the country where euthanasia is illegal. An independent MP, Alex Greenwich, last week tabled a bill in the lower house to change that.

Euthanasia lobbyists have run a thoroughly professional campaign. A petition has been signed by 100,000 supporters. The bill is backed by a record 28 MPs, including members of the government, crossbench and the Labor opposition – which is said to be the highest number of co-sponsors to a bill in the history of any Australian parliament and many doctors have signed a letter of support.

But today the euthanasia juggernaut suddenly ran bang! over a speed bump. And stopped. (Link to news article).

The government and the opposition have agreed to send it to the upper house for an inquiry. Its law and justice committee must report back to the parliament on the first sitting day in February. The bill will then be debated in the upper house.

This by no means guarantees the failure of the bill. But the aura of inevitability has evaporated. The delay will give an opportunity for both sides of the debate to present their best arguments and evidence.

According to an article published by the Conversation on October 12, Premier Dominic Perrottet, Deputy premier Paul Toole and Labor leader Chris Minns, all oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide (assisted dying) in New South Wales.

Perhaps this is the moment to recall an article written by then-Treasurer Dominic Perrottet, in November 2017, published in the Sydney Morning Herald opposing the legalization of assisted suicide. You will notice that the Sydney Morning Herald peppered Perrottet's article with links to pro-assisted suicide stories, nonetheless, Perrottet's article in November 2017 remains insightful in 2021.

Perrottet begins by commenting on how suicide news stories always include links to Australian suicide prevention organizations, such as:

call Lifeline 131 114 or beyondblue 1300 224 636 or visit lifeline.org.au or beyondblue.org.au

He then states:

It's a dark, stark dissonance, and a confronting illustration of former prime minister Paul Keating's observation that, if we make assisted suicide legal, "there will be people whose lives we honour and those we believe are better off dead"...

It's got me wondering: if NSW or Victoria did cross that threshold, would news organisations continue to include the same potentially life-saving referral to suicide-prevention services in their reports? Or will that footnote need to be updated, with one message for those whose deaths the publishers wish to avert, and another for the people whose deaths they are happy to facilitate?

And what about the suicide prevention hotlines themselves? Will they screen out people whose wish to die sounds rational, and who may qualify under the relevant legislation, distinguishing them from the thousands of callers desperately seeking help to avoid the tragedy of suicide? Will those hotlines be asked to refer people who can legally end their own lives to places where they can get more information on how to go about it? Will the hotlines acquiesce in such requests?

Perrottet then brough up the issue of medical mistakes:

And what about mistakes? Our legal system prizes its cornerstone principle of "innocent until proven guilty". The great jurist Lord Blackstone said, "Better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent party suffer". And yet, despite this, innocent people go to jail. Lawyers, juries, judges, police and witnesses all make mistakes, because the fact is, no human system of safeguards is infallible.

So with assisted suicide laws. Doctors will make mistakes. Victims will be pressured. Judgments will be clouded, and among all the arbitrary rules and safeguards, only one thing is absolutely certain: innocent people will die at the hands of these laws if they pass. At least the falsely imprisoned can be exonerated and freed years after the fact. For the innocent victims of assisted suicide laws there can be no long-awaited justice, just the silence of the grave.

This is the dark, dangerous void of confusion and contradiction that we are steering our society into if we back these bills.

He concluded his article by calling on legislators to oppose assisted suicide and support excellent end-of-life care.

We need to help those among us suffering through their darkest hour, not push them deeper into the ultimate darkness.

We need more and better palliative care – something we have significantly boosted in this year's NSW state budget, and something that as Treasurer I will continue to push as a matter of priority.

We must not create a two-tier society of the worst possible kind: where there are those whose lives we desperately work to preserve, and those to whom we really will be saying, "You are better off dead". I will be voting against the NSW legislation, and I call on all people of goodwill here in NSW and in Victoria to consider these issues and make their voices heard.

New South Wales is the only Australian state to not have legalised assisted suicide. I hope they resist the "easy answer for people who want to avoid suffering" and defeat the assisted suicide bill.

Former Premier of NSW Australia opposes assisted suicide.

Because every life matters.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The Australian State of New South Wales (NSW) will soon debate a bill that is sponsored by Alex Greenwich MP (Independent) to legalize assisted death.

An opinion article written by Mike Baird a former NSW premier explains that even though he recently lived through the death of his mother, that he continues to oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Mike Baird, former Premier of NSW

In his article published by the Sydney Morning Herald on October 13, 2021 Baird writes that after being with his mother through her process of dying, the issue of assisted dying has become personal for him. Baird writes:

There were days when I cried just wishing she would walk, talk or laugh again. It is also easy in these circumstances to understand how people wish it would just end, believing quality of life is over. I don’t agree.

In the last 12 months of Mum’s life, my eldest daughter was going through a marriage breakdown. It was heart-wrenching for everyone. In the middle of this, my daughter went to visit my mum.

She greeted my daughter with tears and eyes that shared the pain. When my daughter came home, she said, “I have never felt so loved.” It was as if my mum’s eyes had given her the hug she needed, the tears, the comfort.

Baird explains how legalizing assisted suicide concerns the meaning of being human. He writes:

In this debate we find ourselves on the edge of what it means to be human and looking for an answer. Voluntary assisted dying is introduced to us; it looks neat and easy compared with the messiness and struggle of the natural journey to what we fear might be a difficult death.

But there is nothing neat and easy about agreeing to end a life, however well-motivated the choice seems. Even writing these words reminds me why we would never consider these options normally.

He then writes about how good palliative care leads to a true death with dignity. He continues by emphasizing the need for a caring society.

Despite good intentions, I just don’t think laws can replace human love, compassion and ingenuity. When we lose sight of the intrinsic and immeasurable worth of every moment, for every human life, the laws put in place never protect in the way we hope they might. The unintended consequences can bruise, numb and lessen the spirit of who we are as a people.

Baird concludes his article by emphasizing how every life matters.

With deep respect for all sides of this debate, I call on NSW not to follow, but to lead towards a society where every last moment of life is cherished and remembered, supported by universally available palliative care. Because every life matters until the last breath.

According to an article published by the Conversation on October 12, Premier Dominic Perrottet, Deputy premier Paul Toole and Labor leader Chris Minns, all oppose the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide (assisted dying) in New South Wales.

Doctors urge Western Australia not to legalize euthanasia.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

In the past few weeks, New South Wales Australia defeated a euthanasia bill while Victoria Australia Senate just passed a bill to legalize euthanasia.

Michael Gannon, President
Australian Medical Association.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA), which opposes euthanasia, warned Western Australia to not follow Victoria's lead. Sophia Moore with News.com.au reported:

AMA president Michael Gannon told reporters on Monday that the focus should be on improving access to palliative care, rather than legalising euthanasia. 

Dr Gannon said international experience showed there would be attempts to extend euthanasia laws to people with dementia, mental illness and other forms of chronic disease. 

In the Netherlands, single women over the age of 50 with cancer or chronic illness were the primary group to seek euthanasia, and voluntary-assisted dying is available to children in Belgium. 

A 2015 AMA survey found the majority of Australian doctors oppose voluntary-assisted dying. 

"It goes to the heart of our code of ethics," he told reporters.

Moore then reported that the Western Australian Health Minister supports euthanasia. 

But WA Health Minister Roger Cook said international research done by the Victorian select committee would benefit WA's own investigation into euthanasia. 

"I personally supported euthanasia, in principle," he said.

A WA parliamentary committee investigating end of life choices has received more than 700 submissions, with a final report due in August.

• Australian Medical Association (AMA) opposes bill to legalize euthanasia.

New South Wales Australia defeats euthanasia bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director - Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Congratulations to HOPE Australia and all of the caring people who are standing for the protection of vulnerable Australians.

The New South Wales (NSW) Australia euthanasia bill was defeated by a vote of 20 to 19 in the Upper House of parliament.

ABC News reported that MP's in NSW were given a free conscience vote on the euthanasia bill. According to ABC News:

Christian Democrat Fred Nile said legalisation was a dangerous move. 

"How will such a bill, once passed, impact on how we see value in life?" he said. 

Liberal backbencher Taylor Martin argued euthanasia was comparable to re-introducing the death penalty. 

"One of the main reasons why Australia stopped the barbaric practise of capital punishment is because it is so final," he said. 

"We must consider this bill through a similar lens."

Similar to the experience in the United States, when elected representatives examine the language of the legislation, they will often change their minds and vote against the bill. 

Lawyer, Margaret Dore, from Choice is an Illusion wrote an excellent evaluation of the NSW euthanasia bill.

The euthanasia bill in Victoria Australia is being debated in the Senate. I HOPE that the Senators in Victoria will examine the language of the bill and vote against it.

Former Australian Prime Minister warns against assisted suicide.

This article was published by HOPE Australia on October 24

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has issued a statement warning against the passage of Victoria’s assisted suicide bill. His remarks apply equally to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill which is before the New South Wales Legislative Council.

Mr Keating warned of the pressure legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia would put on people to choose to die prematurely to relieve their family of the burden of care:

[I]t is "commonplace" for patients to tell doctors in front of their loved ones that they have no wish to be a burden on families. 

Once this bill is passed the expectations of patients and families will change. The culture of dying, despite certain and intense resistance, will gradually permeate into our medical, health, social and institutional arrangements. It stands for everything a truly civil society should stand against. A change of this kind will affect our entire community not just a small number of dying patients. It is fatuous to assert that patients will not feel under pressure once this bill becomes law to nominate themselves for termination.

The former prime minister dismissed as hollow utopianism the claim that assisted suicide laws can have rigorous safeguards:

An alarming aspect of the debate is the claim that safeguards can be provided at every step to protect the vulnerable. This claim exposes the bald utopianism of the project – the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor. 

No law and no process can achieve that objective. This is the point. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system. Beyond that, once termination of life is authorised the threshold is crossed.

Mr Keating also stressed the dangerous pro-suicide message an assisted suicide bill would send to the community, including vulnerable young people, explaining that assisted bills send:

the wrong message to people contemplating suicide and undermines suicide prevention efforts. How could this not be the case? Suicide is the leading cause of death among people aged 15-44 and the second leading cause of death among people aged 45-54. International studies offer no support for the view that legalising euthanasia is associated with a decrease in non-assisted suicides.

He warned legislators not to dismiss opposition as religious. Instead what is at stake is:

the civilisational ethic that should be at the heart of our secular society. 

The concerns I express are shared by people of any religion or no religion. In public life it is the principles that matter. They define the norms and values of a society and in this case the principles concern our view of human life itself. It is a mistake for legislators to act on the deeply held emotional concerns of many when that involves crossing a threshold that will affect the entire society in perpetuity.

Victorian and New South Wales MPs, regardless of their party affiliation, should heed this very insightful warning from former Prime Minister Paul Keating.