#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">ACT Set to Implement Most Permissive Euthanasia Laws in Australia

The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is on the brink of implementing the most permissive euthanasia laws in the country, perpetuating a concerning culture of death.

Unlike other states, the ACT is moving forward without requiring terminally ill patients to have a predicted time of death to access euthanasia. This approach deviates from the rest of the nation, where patients are generally required to have a life expectancy of 6 to 12 months to be eligible for assisted suicide.

While the Federal Government paved the way for euthanasia in the ACT in 2022, the Territory’s continued exploration of expanding its scope is deeply troubling.

The earlier consideration of allowing teenagers as young as 14 to access euthanasia underscores a growing and distressing trend. The Government may have abandoned that specific proposal, but it remains committed to exploring even more controversial paths by considering the inclusion of terminally ill minors and individuals with dementia in the euthanasia framework.

This reflects a stark reality in which the sanctity of life and the value of compassionate palliative care are being overshadowed by an increasing focus on providing state-sanctioned suicide as an alternative. The ACT’s eagerness to push these laws forward neglects the potential negative consequences on the vulnerable, sending a disconcerting message about the worth of human life and the culture it is fostering. The sanctity of life should be protected and cherished, not undermined by a rush towards more permissive euthanasia legislation.

#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">Tragic Euthanasia Choice for Palliative Patient When NDIS Funding Cut

The recent tragedy of James “Jim” Mills is a troubling reminder of the tragic effects of legalised assisted suicide on our society’s most vulnerable. Diagnosed with brain cancer in 2021, Jim’s reliance on repurposed NDIS funding led to a brutal choice when it was abruptly cut, pushing him to opt for euthanasia rather than stay in hospital.

Reinstated funding came too late, illustrating how the existence of euthanasia fundamentally alters incentives for government agencies, healthcare providers, and patients. This scenario also highlights the impact on palliative care, which faces a significant challenge when assisted suicide appears a simpler option.

Jim’s heartbreaking story emphasises that even stringent safeguards around euthanasia and assisted suicide are inadequate, leaving room for individuals to fall through the cracks and experience heartbreaking outcomes for themselves and their families.

#212121;margin-top: var(--h4_typography-margin-top);margin-bottom: 10px;--fontsize: 22;--minfontsize: 22">Netherlands Euthanising People Just Because They Have Autism

A recent report on euthanising people with autism and intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands is deeply troubling. Cases mentioned in the report, including people with autism aged under 30, set concerning precedents that go beyond the law’s original intent.

It’s distressing that some with autism view euthanasia as a solution, reflecting society’s failure to support vulnerable individuals and hints at a form of eugenics.

We must consider the broader implications and the risk of pressuring our vulnerable into ending their lives. The media’s portrayal of euthanasia as empowerment should not overshadow the ethical, moral and scriptural questions raised by these practices. This report reminds us of the need for a critical examination of these policies.