The Australian state of Victoria legalised voluntary assisted dying (VAD) in June 2019. Like most jurisdictions with legalised VAD, the Victorian law constructs physicians as the only legal providers of VAD. Physicians with conscientious objection to VAD are not compelled to participate in the practice, requiring colleagues who are willing to participate to transact the process for eligible applicants. Physicians who provide VAD because of their active, moral and purposeful support for the law are known as conscientious participants. Conscientious participation has received scant attention in the bioethics literature. Patient access to VAD is contingent on the development of a sufficient corpus of conscientious participants in permissive jurisdictions. This article reports the findings of a small empirical study into how some Victorian physicians with no in-principle opposition towards the legalisation of VAD, are ethically orientating themselves towards the law, in the first 8 months of the law’s operation. It finds that in-principle-supportive physicians employ bioethical principles to justify their position but struggle to reconcile that approach with the broader medical profession’s opposition. This study is part of the first tranche of empirical research emerging from Australia since the legalisation of VAD in that country for the first time in over 20 years.
- clinical ethics
- suicide/assisted suicide
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors JR contributed to concept and design, data collection and analysis, and drafting the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This research was conducted under the approval of the Queensland University of Technology’s University Human Research Ethics Committee clearance number 1800000970.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data are available upon request.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews
- Assisted dying: the ongoing debate
- Spanish regulation of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
- Conscientious objection and physician-assisted suicide: a viable option in the UK?
- The Cohen problem of informed consent
- Becoming a medical assistance in dying (MAiD) provider: an exploration of the conditions that produce conscientious participation
- Toward accommodating physicians’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- Internal morality of medicine and physician autonomy
- Conscientious refusals to refer: findings from a national physician survey
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies