Voluntary Assisted Dying
Position Statement
Introduction
Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) is a legal process that allows eligible people who are experiencing unbearable suffering to request medical assistance to end their life. It is strictly voluntary in that the person must initiate every step themselves. The term "assisted dying" reflects the emphasis on personal autonomy and dignity at the end of life.
In Australia, VAD is now legal in all six states and the ACT, with the Northern Territory committed to introducing VAD legislation in 2026. While the specific rules vary by jurisdiction, the general process follows a similar pattern: a person must be an adult (usually 18+) with a serious and incurable condition. They must have decision-making capacity and be acting without coercion. The process requires at least two independent assessments by trained medical practitioners, a series of formal requests made over a minimum waiting period and the prescription of an approved substance. The substance is then administered at the time of the person’s choosing.
Humanists “accept that morality is inherent to the human condition, grounded in the ability of living things to suffer and flourish, motivated by the benefits of helping and not harming, enabled by reason and compassion, and needing no source outside of humanity. We affirm the worth and dignity of the individual and the right of every human to the greatest possible freedom… compatible with the rights of others.” This position statement from Humanists Australia (HA) views Voluntary Assisted Dying through the lens of Humanist values, and in particular:
Compassion: empathising with the intolerable suffering endured by people with illnesses for which there is no relief, along with the friends and family watching on helplessly.
Reason: applying reasoned arguments for practical action in place of deferring to claimed religious authority and tradition, as well as drawing on the experiences of jurisdictions successfully implementing VAD.
Diversity: ensuring that VAD is available and accessible, in a culturally sensitive way, to all who are eligible, including people living in poverty.
Integrity: ensuring that anyone seeking VAD is not being coerced or manipulated.
Three aspects of VAD will be considered in this statement:
Who should be eligible?
What services should be provided?
How should VAD be monitored and reviewed?
Who should be eligible for VAD?
Terminal illness
One of the arguments against VAD commonly cited is that palliative care should receive more funding instead of legalising VAD. Indeed, high-quality palliative care can in some cases be sufficient to ease a person’s suffering and provide families with a valued opportunity to say goodbye to their loved one in a setting that provides both the dying person and their family care and support. HA values palliative care and supports increased funding for it. HA also recognises that palliative care is not always sufficient to ease a person’s suffering, and therefore HA believes that people approaching end of life should be able to access both high-quality palliative care and VAD.
Some jurisdictions require that death must be foreseeable within a specific timeframe. Not all terminal illnesses are amenable to prediction of the time of death, and different doctors may have differing opinions. In HA’s view, the important factor is not the estimated time of natural death, but the suffering that the person is experiencing and their personal wishes. HA believes that all people with a terminal illness should be eligible for VAD at the time of their choosing, regardless of when their natural death is expected to occur.
Intolerable incurable suffering
There are many conditions that may cause an individual to experience intolerable suffering with no hope of relief — conditions that nevertheless are not expected to cause death in the short to medium term. Examples include people with severe neurological conditions and people with untreatable chronic pain. Currently there are no Australian jurisdictions that permit VAD under those circumstances. There are other countries where VAD legislation does permit this. In Canada, for example, under the 2021 modification to the Medical Assistance in Dying framework (MAID), people with conditions such as these are eligible for VAD.
The Canadian MAID legislation was modified after a legal challenge by Jean Truchon and Nicole Gladu, both of whom were people with disabilities that cause suffering with no hope of relief, but with no foreseeable end. They successfully argued that the original legislation infringed their rights under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Humanists believe that all should have equal rights and opportunities.
When a person fully and competently consents to ending their life or being helped to do so, HA holds that whether their illness is terminal does not matter morally. What matters is how severely they are suffering with no hope of relief. HA believes that VAD should be available to anyone experiencing intolerable incurable suffering, regardless of whether they have a terminal illness.
At the same time, HA firmly holds that people with disabilities must never be pressured, whether explicitly or through the withdrawal or inadequate provision of support services, into choosing VAD as a means of relieving strain on the medical or care system. The choice must always be genuinely free, made on the person's own terms and in their own time.
The experience of intolerable suffering is complex, arising not just from physical pain but also other aspects of a person’s life. HA recommends that if VAD is available to those without a terminal illness, their process should be part of a holistic set of services that aim to address these aspects through counselling, financial support and social support, for example.
Dementia
Some people with dementia are able to accept their condition and live with it relatively comfortably. Others struggle with it and become very distressed. A few become a danger to other residents and staff, and are given chemical restraints so that their behaviour can be managed. Some people with dementia are clear about what they want and can be consistent with it over a long period of time, even when they are not able to hold to a decision on other matters.
HA is in agreement with Dementia Australia’s view that people with dementia ought to be treated with dignity, and the option for VAD should not be automatically refused. A diagnosis of dementia or enactment of Enduring Power of Attorney does not necessarily mean a person has lost their decision-making capacity. HA believes that someone with dementia who is making a request for VAD should be individually psychologically assessed for their decision-making capacity with regard to that decision, even if their medical decision-making is generally handled by their Attorney.
Loss of Capacity
In some jurisdictions, Advanced Care Directives already allow a person to request withdrawal of food and fluids under certain conditions, for example advanced dementia. While the recognition of the autonomy of the dementia patient is commendable, the resulting slow and painful death by dehydration or starvation (if the person is not maximally palliated) is an affront to the dignity of the human being.
HA believes that everyone should have the option of creating an Advanced Care Directive defining the conditions under which VAD is to be offered to them, and the right to appoint an advocate to initiate action and make that decision on their behalf should they lose capacity themselves.
Locality
Some jurisdictions impose residency requirements; for example, as of early 2026, a person seeking VAD in Victoria must be an Australian citizen or permanent resident who has been ordinarily resident in the state for at least 12 months at the time of their first request. Now that VAD has been legalised in all Australian states and the ACT, HA recommends that state-specific residency restrictions be removed.
What services should be provided?
People requesting VAD are entitled to a process that is efficient and streamlined while guaranteeing the key objective of protecting the applicant from undue coercion or manipulation – whether to end their life through VAD, or to continue their life despite intolerable suffering.
Stringency of the process will need to vary, depending on the reason for the request. Canada’s revised safeguards offer an example of separate processes for the terminally ill versus others seeking VAD.
Humanists value diversity and believe that all people should have equal rights and opportunities. HA recommends that care be taken to ensure VAD is accessible to all who are eligible. In particular:
The VAD process must be easily accessible to people with disabilities and neurodivergent people.
Communication between the person requesting VAD and medical professionals is critical. As family members may have a conflict of interest, independent translators should be available for people for whom English is a second language.
Access to VAD should be provided in a culturally sensitive way.
VAD should be available as an in-home service for those who are confined to bed.
VAD should be affordable for people on a limited income.
VAD should be accessible to people living in regional and remote locations.
VAD should be available to people living in aged care facilities, and to patients receiving treatment in hospitals or other health facilities, regardless of whether the institution is secular or religious.
One mechanism for extending accessibility of VAD could be via telehealth consultations for people who are bedridden or who live in regional or remote areas. Sections 474.29A and 474.29B of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (inserted via a 2005 amendment) prohibit using a "carriage service"—including phone, email, or video calls—to counsel or incite suicide. The Federal Court confirmed that using telehealth to discuss VAD, even where it is legal under state law, could lead to prosecution. HA recommends changes to the Act to legalise discussion of VAD over carriage services by qualified health professionals with their patients, when all parties to the call are in jurisdictions where VAD is legal.
Everyone who has requested VAD should have the opportunity to rescind their request at any time without restriction.
Humanists respect the right of all people to practise their beliefs, so long as they do no harm to others. HA supports the right of individual practitioners to refuse to assist with VAD. It is important, however, that those seeking VAD are not forced to go “doctor shopping” to find a practitioner who will assist them. HA supports legislation that enables clinicians to exercise their right of conscience, but also requires them to refer patients to government-provided care navigator services.
VAD should not be seen as a replacement for palliative care or other forms of support at the end of life. Instead, it should be one option within a broader system designed to reduce suffering and support people through the final stage of life. HA recommends the creation of holistic end-of-life care centres that offer palliative care, VAD, counselling, referrals and other support services for people nearing the end of life and their families. The care centre should include palliative care beds in a home-like setting, outpatient services, and home visits to people who wish to die in their own homes.
How should VAD be monitored and reviewed?
All VAD requests should be recorded along with information about the reason for the request, whether a drug administered at the termination of a VAD process was the cause of death, what other services were offered, and other variables such as demographics.
HA recommends that this information should be reported by health practitioners to state-appointed review boards, along with public data reported via comprehensive annual reports delivered to each jurisdiction's parliament. This data should be used to inform future updates to the legislation.
In summary
Humanists Australia supports Voluntary Assisted Dying as an expression of our core values of compassion, reason, diversity and integrity. VAD is now legal across all Australian states and the ACT, and we view it through the lens of our commitment to individual autonomy and human dignity. We do not see VAD as an alternative to palliative care — rather, we believe it should sit alongside palliative care as one option within a broader, holistic end-of-life care system.
On eligibility, we take a clear and principled position. VAD should be available to all people with a terminal illness regardless of their prognosis timeframe, and we go further: we believe VAD should also be available to anyone experiencing intolerable incurable suffering, even without a terminal diagnosis. This aligns with Canada's MAID framework and reflects our view that what matters morally is the severity of a person's suffering, not the nature of their illness. On dementia, we reject automatic exclusion — instead, we recommend individual psychological assessment of decision-making capacity, and we support the use of Advanced Care Directives to allow people to request VAD in advance should they lose capacity. We support the lifting of state residency restrictions.
On service delivery and oversight, we are committed to equity and accessibility. VAD must be genuinely available to people with disabilities, those in regional and remote areas, non-English speakers, aged care residents and people on limited incomes. We support telehealth as a delivery mechanism. Clinicians should be able to conscientiously object, but must refer patients to government-provided navigation services. Finally, we call for robust data collection and public reporting to parliament, so that evidence can drive continuous improvement to VAD legislation across all jurisdictions.
Acknowledgements
This statement was prepared with the assistance of:
Initial draft: Mary-Anne Cosgrove, Humanists Australia
Advisers:
Iain McKinnon, Going: Your Way
Max Wallace, Secular Association of NSW
Roy Harvey, Dying with Dignity ACT
Contributors: Leslie Allan and Meg Moller. We would also like to acknowledge the thoughtful feedback provided by Clancy Aimers-McGuiness, Rod Bower, Catherine Home, Lorraine Pestell, Paulina Stanek, Ben van der Linden, Drew Wolfendale and other HA members.
Coordinator: Murray W
