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

By contrast, we could not rationally have a debate about whether people from certain backgrounds should be excluded from medical treatment. Fully informed parties in ideal conversation conditions would quickly see that such a proposal could not be sustained.

It is because some issues are genuinely contestable – are issues about which there can reasonably be a range of different views – that our democratic society has recognised the right of each and every one of us to make up our own minds about them, and act accordingly in our own lives. This is why we hear a lot about the importance of autonomy, of my right to decide for myself what beliefs I accept about, eg, how I should die.

It follows from this that, if the VAD debate could be decided on matters of personal conscience alone, the default position should be to make VAD legal.

This point has not been acknowledged by parliamentarians, including the
Queensland Premier today. It has also been ignored by case law. It is always assumed that there are just two opposing positions to this debate: one in favour of a continued prohibition of VAD and the other in favour of making VAD legal. It has been said repeatedly that both prohibition of VAD and making VAD legal holds one side of the debate hostage to the other.

But 'making VAD legal' here is ambiguous and can be done in two ways. Understanding this is the key to resolving the VAD debate.

To see the ambiguity, it is essential to remember that there are three types of legislation, not two:

1. Prohibiting legislation, legislation that prohibits us from doing certain things, such as speeding or stealing.

2. Permissive legislation, legislation that allows us to do certain things provided certain requirements are met, such as have IVF treatment.

3. Mandating legislation: legislation that mandates that people do certain things, such as wear a seatbelt.

We could 'make VAD legal' by choosing either type 2 or type 3 legislation. But no one is suggesting type 3 for VAD. It is actually only the prohibiting or mandating legislation that holds everyone hostage to one view. Type 2 permissive legislation does not, since it allows each of us to make up our own minds about whether we would want to access VAD ourselves in our own lives.

If we legalise VAD permissively (opt for type 2 legislation), nobody is forced to have it but, equally, nobody is forced not to have it. Whether we do or don't is up to each of us.

This is why the Premier is wrong to delay the introduction of VAD laws in Queensland on the basis that it is a complex personal matter that needs further investigation. Permissive legislation best respects the views of both sides in this debate. If the VAD debate came down to personal matters alone, we should make it legal straightaway.