Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
The law preventing telehealth in voluntary assisted dying is in the spotlight again after the Labor national conference resolved to repeal it, via a conscience vote.
The Commonwealth Criminal Code criminalises promoting, inciting or providing instructions on “suicide” over a “carriage service”. This law, passed in 2005, was originally aimed at pro-suicide websites and internet chat rooms.
But in 2023, the Federal Court concluded the code applied to the new state voluntary assisted dying laws.
While telehealth is usually an integral part of modern health care, health practitioners risk prosecution for using it in voluntary assisted dying.
Read more:
Labor national conference backs use of telehealth in voluntary assisted dying care
To address this risk, some aspects of the voluntary assisted dying process, such as eligibility assessments, are not discussed by phone or videoconference in some states.
But “carriage service” also includes internet, email and fax, so the ban is very broad. It limits some emails between health-care practitioners and patients.
In some jurisdictions, voluntary assisted dying prescriptions are hand delivered or posted, not emailed or faxed.
The law preventing telehealth in voluntary assisted dying is problematic and should be scrapped.
How does voluntary assisted dying work?
All Australian jurisdictions, except for the Northern Territory, have voluntary assisted dying laws. The NT appears set to follow later this year.
These laws allow an adult who is suffering from a terminal condition and who has capacity to make their own decision to seek assistance to die.
Read more:
Voluntary assisted dying isn’t available to all Australians. In 2026, this may finally change
They must make three separate requests and be independently assessed by at least two specially trained doctors (one can be a nurse practitioner in the Australian Capital Territory).
A person can either take the medication themselves or have a health practitioner administer it to them.
The process is highly regulated. It includes assessing whether someone has the capacity to make the decision and is doing so voluntarily, and ongoing reporting to voluntary assisted dying review boards.
When implementing voluntary assisted dying, each jurisdiction produced guidance on the Commonwealth Criminal Code for health practitioners. Some, such as Victoria, took a conservative approach and prohibited all conversations about voluntary assisted dying occurring electronically.
Others, such as Queensland, were more nuanced. It allowed telehealth for eligibility assessments, while requiring discussions about prescribing and administering medication to occur in person.
How does the prohibition impact patients?
Our research across three Australian states with all key parties – patients, families, health practitioners, health bodies and regulators – shows the code is a major barrier to accessing voluntary assisted dying.
State attorneys-general and voluntary assisted dying review boards have repeatedly called for the code’s repeal. So has the Australian Medical Association.
Without telehealth, many terminally ill patients in rural and regional areas must travel long distances for voluntary assisted dying consultations. This often causes pain and distress.
But it isn’t just an issue for regional Australia. For some terminally ill patients, any travel can be painful and difficult, requiring extensive logistical planning.
One family member in our research described their loved one “in tears and distressed and in hysterics” after having to travel to an assessment.
Doctors must also travel significant distances to consult with patients. In rural and remote Western Australia, doctors can spend two days travelling to a single patient appointment which could happen over telehealth.
Travel delays mean sometimes patients miss out on voluntary assisted dying.
What happens elsewhere?
Telehealth is commonly used in other countries that allow voluntary assisted dying. This benefits both patients and clinicians.
Some other jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada have regulations or clinical guidelines that frame how telehealth may be used in voluntary assisted dying.
But Australia is the only country that prohibits it.
What are the arguments for keeping the prohibition on telehealth?
Some arguments for maintaining the prohibition on telehealth in voluntary assisted dying are based on opposition to voluntary assisted dying itself.
One argument is that allowing telehealth will remove a barrier, so more people will choose this option. This may be so, but keeping the ban discriminates against people who live in regional and rural areas or are too sick to travel.
Other arguments are based on concerns about assessing capacity and detecting potential coercion via telehealth, important considerations that must be paid careful attention.
However, other jurisdictions effectively and safely use telehealth for voluntary assisted dying. Telehealth is also already used in Australia in a range of sensitive settings including palliative care, mental health and abortion services.
How might processes change if the ban was lifted?
Repealing the federal ban would enable health practitioners to use telehealth for voluntary assisted dying when clinically appropriate.
This might be when face-to-face appointments are not feasible because a patient is too unwell to travel.
It could also include the ability to email prescriptions, which is standard clinical practice.
The use of telehealth would still be regulated at the state and territory level, through clinical guidelines and professional standards, as in other parts of medicine.
Where there are concerns about coercion or capacity, consultations could still occur face-to-face.
Will the telehealth ban be repealed?
The legislative fix is simple. Just one sentence is needed:
In this Subdivision, “suicide” does not include voluntary assisted dying carried out lawfully pursuant to a law of a State or Territory.
More complex will be how federal members of parliament exercise what is traditionally a conscience vote.
Any reform will likely occur through a private member’s bill. Independent federal MP Kate Chaney may reintroduce her bill or the Greens may do so.
For MPs deciding their conscience vote, debates about whether voluntary assisted dying should be legal have already happened. The question now is how this legal end-of-life choice is best regulated.
There is a large body of evidence showing this ban is causing harm. Repealing it will allow states and territories to regulate the safe use of telehealth within voluntary assisted dying through their existing guidelines and regulation.
Ben White has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Commonwealth and state governments, and philanthropic organisations for research and training about the law, policy and practice relating to end-of-life care. In relation to voluntary assisted dying, he (with colleagues) has been engaged by the Victorian, Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. He was appointed as an Expert Legal Advisor to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory for its report on voluntary assisted dying and (with colleagues) developed the accompanying drafting instructions. He was also engaged (with colleagues) to provide a research report to support the Western Australian review of the voluntary assisted dying laws. He is a member of the Tasmanian Panel for the review of the End-of-Life Choices (Voluntary Assisted Dying) Act 2021. He (with Lindy Willmott) developed a model bill for voluntary assisted dying for parliaments to consider. Ben is a recipient of an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (project number FT190100410: Enhancing End-of-Life Decision-Making: Optimal Regulation of Voluntary Assisted Dying) funded by the Australian Government. He is also a Chief Investigator on a current Australian Research Council Linkage Project on voluntary assisted dying (partnering with Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Boards and/or Departments of Health in five Australian States).
Eliana Close receives funding from the Commonwealth Government as part of the team delivering End of Life Law for Clinicians, a free online training program on end of life law. With colleagues, she helped develop the legislatively mandated voluntary assisted dying training for clinicians in Victoria, Western Australia, and Queensland, commissioned by state governments.
Katrine Del Villar was part of the team engaged by the Western Australian and Queensland governments to design and provide the legislatively mandated training for health practitioners involved in voluntary assisted dying in those states. She was part of the team engaged by a Northern Territory parliamentary committee to develop drafting instructions for a voluntary assisted dying bill. She is also part of a Commonwealth government-funded grant to provide online and in person training in end of life law to clinicians.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/28/the-ban-on-telehealth-in-voluntary-assisted-dying-doesnt-stack-up-heres-why-it-should-be-scrapped/