A new paper from the Anscombe Bioethics Centre in Oxford warns against using Australia as a model for UK laws on assisted suicide and euthanasia. Both the UK Parliament at Westminster and the Scottish Parliament are currently considering bills that would legalise what is often called “assisted dying”.
In his briefing paper Wrong Side of the World: The Misplaced Reliance on Australia in the UK Debate on ‘Assisted Dying’, Professor David Albert Jones, director of the Centre, explains how Australia’s approach to euthanasia and assisted suicide has shifted rapidly since the first laws were introduced in 2017. He argues that relying on Australia for guidance is risky, as its experience is recent, inconsistent, and already showing signs of a “slippery slope”.
It is important to note that the Anscombe Bioethics Centre is opposed to assisted suicide/euthanasia under all circumstances, but campaigners in favour often point to Australia as a model to follow. As Prof. Jones shows, even on its own terms, the Australians laws serve as a warning, not a model.
Victoria was the first Australian state to legalise what it calls “voluntary assisted dying” (VAD). Other states have followed, each introducing slightly different rules and safeguards. Because these laws are so new, there is little long-term data to assess their impact. The differences between states also mean there is no single “Australian model” that can be easily adopted elsewhere.
A key difference between Australia and the UK proposals lies in the method of administration. In Australia, the majority of cases involve euthanasia, where a doctor administers a lethal drug. In contrast, the UK bills, in both England and Scotland, focus on assisted suicide, where the patient takes the drug themselves. This distinction is important, not only ethically and legally, but also because most Australian data relate to euthanasia, which may not be relevant to the UK context. It also shifts the burden of responsibility between doctors and patients in ways that need careful consideration.
Another concern raised in the briefing paper is the weakening of safeguards over time. For example, while the state of Victoria initially included strict measures to protect vulnerable people, later laws in other states have relaxed these, making access easier and reducing oversight. Professor Jones warns that once the principle is accepted, pressure grows to expand access, even at the cost of patient protection.
The paper also examines developments in Canada, where the scope of ‘assisted dying’ has broadened far beyond what was originally promised. It is now available not only to those who are terminally ill, but also to people with chronic conditions and may soon include those with mental illness alone. Australia may be heading in the same direction.
Last month, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities called on Canada to roll back its expansion of “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD). The Committee criticised Canada’s “Track 2” MAiD, which is available to people whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable, as being “based on negative, ableist perceptions” of disabled people’s lives, and warned it is disproportionately affecting marginalised groups.
The Anscombe Institute also criticises the UK parliamentary committees for relying entirely on experts who support legalising assisted suicide. Prof. Jones points out that the witnesses invited to speak about Australia’s experience all gave favourable accounts, with no critical voices included. This one-sided approach, he argues, created a biased picture and failed to reflect the full range of professional and ethical concerns raised within Australia itself. For a balanced debate, Prof. Jones urges UK lawmakers to hear not only from supporters of assisted suicide, but also from critics whose concerns point to serious risks and long-term consequences.
The briefing paper concludes that the UK should not base its policy on Australia’s limited and changing experience, but instead take a careful approach rooted in the UK’s own legal, cultural, and medical traditions, before making such a dramatic change.
