Man Dies From Taking Wife’s Euthanasia Drugs

A "euthanasia kit" available in the 250 Belgian Multipharma's chemist shops for the general practitioners who want to practise euthanasias at the patients' homes on April 18, 2005 ETIENNE ANSOTTE/AFP/Getty Images

Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws will be examined after a man used his wife’s euthanasia drugs after she died in hospital.

The older man was not eligible for VAD, but he died after self-ingesting the oral substance prescribed to his VAD-eligible wife who passed away before she had the chance to take it.

The matter was referred to the coroner and Queensland Health is finalising the investigation.

In Queensland, VAD patients must return their drugs after 14 days if not used.

However, Health, Mental Health, and Ambulance Services Minister Shannon Fentiman said the Queensland government would “absolutely” look to tighten VAD regulations.

“Upon the completion of the investigation that is underway, about the unauthorised use of voluntary assisted dying medication, we will look at absolutely whether we need to strengthen the legislation about that 14-day turnaround for medication to be returned, which I suspect we will do,” she told reporters on Sept. 25.

Ms. Fentiman said she would await the outcome of the investigation first and expects the coroner to have some recommendations.

“Despite that one incident, I want to say that we have seen a record number of Queenslanders take part very safely in our voluntary assisted dying scheme,” she said.

The incident, believed to be the first time in Australia any VAD system had been misused, was mentioned in the first annual report of the state’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board released on Sept. 26.

“The Review Board is aware of an incident that has separately been referred to the coroner. While the coronial investigation is ongoing it is not appropriate for the Review Board to comment further,” the report said.

Queensland Lenient VAD Laws Almost Led to 600 Deaths

More Queenslanders undertook the VAD scheme than any other state, according to the report.

However, Ms. Fentiman said that although legislation may need to be “tightened”, she added, “I’m really proud that our government has put in place this system.”

Since VAD became legal in Queensland in January, about 15 months after the legislation passed the state parliament, 591 people commenced the VAD process, and 245 terminally ill people died.

The state’s VAD eligibility is, however, broader than other jurisdictions. Queenslanders can access the scheme if they have an illness or medical condition expected to cause death within 12 months.

Other states have six-month eligibility criteria, but Victoria is an exception, where people must have an illness or medical condition expected to cause death within six months unless they have a neurodegenerative disease.

The report revealed that 78 percent of people in Queensland who accessed VAD had cancer; other diagnoses were end-stage renal and liver disease and neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases.

Further, the state had nearly 50 percent (49) of VAD patients living outside metropolitan areas and 318 authorised euthanasia practitioners composed of doctors and nurses.

About 49 percent of authorised practitioners were in South East Queensland, while others were based in larger regional cities such as Toowoomba, Townsville, Mackay, and Cairns.

Ms. Fentiman said the report proved VAD was a “safe, accessible, and compassionate option for Queenslanders dying and suffering.”

However, Associate Prof. Helen Irving made five recommendations to the scheme after the state’s first six months of VAD operation including “adequate, ongoing funding and resources” to support those accessing VAD and private and public health practitioners. She said the funding would allow continuous review of VAD working practice.

Further recommendations were amendments to the Commonwealth Criminal Code to permit doctors to use telehealth for VAD consultations. The current Criminal Code prohibits the electronic transmission of prescriptions for a substance under the scheme.

The report said that because of this, “practitioners or people accessing voluntary assisted dying are required to travel, at times long distances, to be able to access the service without the risk of breaching the commonwealth criminal code.”

Dying with Dignity Queensland President Sheila Sim backed the recommendation and said the biggest problem with the state’s VAD laws was more people should be aware of them.

Assisted Dying Advocates Skew VAD as ‘Good Death’

However, Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies in Tasmania Director David Daintree said mental health impaired minds were more susceptible to being persuased to take a “radical course of action” when that action was “popularly depicted as humane, generous, and compassionate.”

Mr. Daintree said “assisted dying” advocates are very good at presenting their case with kindness, and they have “convinced themselves” that a good death, at the right time, free from pain and anxiety, is a goal worth gaining.

“They are authoritatively giving permission to fragile people to take control of their deaths and presenting that option as a decent and even courageous,” he wrote in The Epoch Times.

Meanwhile, he said euthanasia advocates deliberately try to confuse the issue. He said it is not, nor ever has been, “illegal or immoral” to refuse to submit to “unnatural” medical intervention.

“It is not illegal to ask for or give painkillers in heroic doses, provided the intention is to comfort, not kill. If death is the outcome, that is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is active killing,” he said.

“To legislate for it is gravely dangerous not just to those susceptible to persuasion, but to the moral fabric of society.”