by MARSHALL PERRON
Former NT Chief Minister
Architect and sponsor of the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill ACT (1995)
It has now been 19 months since the NT regained the authority to revisit VAD in December 2022. By not delivering a draft VAD Bill, but a series of recommendations to be further considered, the whole exercise has been one of procrastination.
The report states that after a VAD law passes the Parliament, it is likely to take up to 18 months to establish procedures before it becomes operational. If drafting and passing a Bill takes 6 months, which is optimistic, it will be 3 and a half years from the time legislative authority was returned, before the first Territorian can access VAD.
The Expert Panel cannot be blamed for the timing. They have complied with the timeframe set by the Territory Government. In contrast, the ACT Government commenced the consultation process shortly after they were able to, completed it without haste, and passed a VAD bill in 18 months.
In addition to consulting Territorians, the panel was required to report on what the NT can learn from the VAD experience in other jurisdictions, including overseas.
The primary issue in VAD legislation is eligibility. Everything else is administration (the gauntlet to be run before a person can access the promised peaceful death.) The Panel has taken a timid approach to the subject by not recommending an extension to eligibility for persons not terminally ill and for those with dementia.
VAD for the suffering, incurably but not terminally ill adult, and those with dementia, are top priorities the public want included. VAD regimes in Europe and Canada have addressed the issues involved and legislated. There is mounting academic and medical debate on the subject in Australia. What is required is a willingness by legislators to embrace the subjects rather than claiming it is just too hard.
Surprisingly, the Panel recommends persons seeking VAD must have a prognosis of 12 months or less to be eligible. Evidence from the States which have this provision shows it is problematic. Estimates of life left are difficult and often inaccurate. There have been cases of applicants dying before they have completed the process required to comply for VAD.
Submissions on this subject compelled the ACT to not include any timeframe to death in their eligibility requirements, a first in Australia which the NT should duplicate.
Following advice from the states, the ACT also dropped the cruel ‘cooling off period’, yet the NT Panel recommends mirroring provisions in the state laws.
One issue I believe the Expert Panel has right is the proposed centralised model for delivery of VAD. Considering the unique geography and demography of the NT, it makes sense for the reasons stated in the report.
Adding to the case is the very low numbers of people likely to be seeking VAD in the Territory. Based on figures showing Australians choosing VAD is less than 1% of all deaths, it is likely NT users will number less than 15 – 20 per year.
The recommendation that no permit be required before a VAD prescription is issued and that Doctors can initiate a discussion with a patient (banned in two states) is supported.
The report also identifies difficulties that need consideration if indigenous Territorians, who retain a cultural lifestyle with varied unique attitudes and practices toward death, seek VAD. While this may be unlikely among groups who do not have a word for voluntary in their language, some education is likely to be necessary.
Queensland and WA have significant indigenous populations yet there have been no reports of concern or conflict relating to the impact of VAD in those states.
Anyone hoping for early attention by whoever wins the forthcoming election may be disappointed. The Chief Minister says she will table a VAD bill in Parliament sometime in the next 4 years. Tabling a Bill in the parliamentary process is a step before introducing a Bill. It is just another method of procrastination.
The CLP stance is equally uncertain. No public commitment has been given other than constituents will be consulted before a decision is made. If, as polls show, the vast majority of Territory voters want the option of VAD, they will be waiting for years. The question is how many years.
Maybe, just maybe, someone in the next crop of individuals who win a seat in Parliament on August 24 will have the interest, drive and determination to introduce a private members bill.
That is how the Territory last had VAD 28 years ago.
