Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Why making voluntary assisted dying legal best respects both sides of this debate

By Andrew McGee - posted Monday, 25 May 2020

After almost three decades of refusing to agree to it, Australian parliaments are slowly beginning to warm to the idea of voluntary assisted dying (VAD). Legislation has already been passed in Victoria and a number of people have now been able to end their lives under the legislation.

Legislation with similar requirements has also now passed in Western Australia, and is due to come into effect in 2021. Other States and Territories such as Queensland have held inquiries into the issue with parliamentary reports recommending legalisation. New Zealand will have a referendum on it later this year.

However, progress remains slow. The Queensland government has just responded to the recommendation of its parliamentary inquiry on Thursday. The Premier pointed out that VAD is "a deeply personal issue in which competing views of Queenslanders and experts have to be carefully balanced". For this reason she has delayed introduction of a bill, and referred the issue to the Queensland Law Reform Commission for further investigation.


The Premier is right that VAD is a deeply personal issue about which competing views of Queenslanders need to be carefully balanced. But we should keep the views of Queenslanders with the views of experts separate, as these views are about different things.

The views of the experts are largely about empirical, rather than personal, matters. An abiding feature of the VAD debate since the first bill was introduced in 1993 is the tendency view empirical matters as equivalent to personal ones. This has significantly impeded progress, and continues to do so in the UK parliaments and courts.

We need to carefully distinguish personal matters from empirical matters. So-called experts are no more qualified than you are or I am to talk about personal matters. By their very nature, these matters are to do with our own personal conscience, values and beliefs.

But experts are qualified to talk about the empirical matters, such as the possible impact of making VAD legal on 'the lives of our elderly and the most vulnerable people'. Both personal matters and empirical matters have a role to play in the VAD debate.

Personal Matters

There are some ethical issues about which people can reasonably have different views on grounds of personal conscience.


You may practice a religion, and feel that allowing another human being to take someone's life is against your religion's ethical code. Or you might feel that there's a danger that we are disrespecting the miracle of life if we allow VAD. In parliamentary debates, this kind of view is sometimes expressed by MPs. In one debate, an MP said: "it is my understanding that God has a no kill policy".

I may not share that view. Not only may I not believe in any religion, but even if I do, I may think that my religion's ethical code should make an exception for people suffering unbearably. In our democratic society, we have come to tolerate people's right to hold and practice certain beliefs that are not shared by everyone – provided that the practice of such beliefs does not unduly harm others.

We might call such beliefs reasonable in a wide sense. Although we may personally dismiss such beliefs as false or misguided (and so unreasonable in a narrow sense), they are views about which we can rationally have a debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

An edited version of this piece was first published by the Brisbane Times.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

26 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Andrew McGee obtained his PhD in philosophy from the University of Essex in 2001 and is an associate professor in the Law Faculty at QUT. He has published on a number of philosophy and legal issues in leading international philosophy and law journals.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Andrew McGee

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Andrew McGee
Article Tools
Comment 26 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy