Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has diverged from his party's stance on expanding voluntary assisted dying (VAD) access through telehealth, expressing concerns that such a change could weaken the system's safeguards.
In a Sunday interview on ABC's Insiders, Albanese articulated his personal position, stating he is "yet to be convinced" that Australians should be permitted to discuss VAD with doctors remotely. "I think it is important that people have the right to die… with dignity," he said, "But it's also important that protections be placed around it."
Albanese drew a parallel to emergency medical situations, arguing that acute health conditions require in-person doctor access. "I think someone ending their life is just as important. I think it should be face-to-face recognition and face-to-face engagement," he stated. His primary concern is the "potential for misuse but also the potential it has to undermine the system itself." He acknowledged, "That's my position. I respect the fact that there are different views on this."
His comments follow a decision by Labor delegates at the party's national conference to support removing barriers to VAD, including the provision for telehealth consultations. Advocates argue that the current prohibition disproportionately affects individuals in rural and regional areas, where in-person medical access can be limited. Under current laws, doctors face significant fines for conducting VAD consultations via telehealth.
Despite the party's resolution, Albanese emphasized that any legislative changes would be a matter for the government and parliament. He noted that conference decisions provide a "general direction" and that VAD is considered a "matter of conscience."
Pressure is mounting on the Labor party to address the issue. Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has indicated plans to introduce a private member's bill to overturn the telehealth ban, and Independent MP Kate Chaney is preparing similar legislation for the House of Representatives. Chaney has highlighted "heartbreaking stories" of terminally ill individuals enduring suffering due to difficulties in accessing in-person VAD consultations, citing cases of patients traveling long distances or being forced to meet doctors in inconvenient locations. She argues that current laws prevent access to VAD, even when lawful.
Supporters of reform contend that the telehealth restriction particularly impacts those in remote communities. Medical bodies, including the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, have also voiced support for telehealth as a safe complement to VAD services, especially for patients unable to travel or when doctors cannot reach them promptly.