Dear editor,

Although no longer a resident of the Northern Territory, I have long campaigned for the restoration of the Legislative Assembly’s capacity to legislate on voluntary assisted dying. On this basis, and as someone who has been closely involved in every state VAD campaign – both successful and unsuccessful – I write to you regarding the development of the NT proposed VAD Bill.

Given the gravity and ethical depth of VAD legislation, there are numerous complex decisions to be made. The specific issue I wish to address is whether a prognostic timeframe to death should form part of the eligibility criteria.

Recent media reports quoted Attorney-General Marie-Clare Boothby as noting there would be “consideration of a clear timeframe linked to the end of life.”

I respectfully urge the Attorney-General to accept the recommendation of the NT Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on VAD, which concluded that no prognostic timeframe should be included – for the same reasons clearly articulated in its report.

Each Australian state has enacted VAD legislation, usually after long and cautious debate. In most cases, support among parliamentarians was hard-won and, as a result, the early state schemes were overly restrictive.

Victoria’s law, the first, was framed around the rhetoric of having “the most safeguards in the world.” While the intent to ensure safety was laudable, in practice this meant that dignity, compassion, and individual choice were compromised in favour of measures designed to strictly limit access.

Subsequent states largely followed Victoria’s model, replicating the inclusion of a prognostic timeframe – commonly six or twelve months – as an eligibility condition. However, the ACT Parliament, after thoroughly reviewing evidence and experiences from both Australian and international jurisdictions, made the informed and appropriate decision not to include a fixed timeframe in its law. This key choice makes the ACT’s approach the most compassionate and evidence-based VAD framework in the country.

Prognostic timeframes are not safeguards in the true sense. They do not protect the so-called “vulnerable”. Other provisions in the legislation already do that. Their sole practical effect is to exclude eligible and suffering individuals from accessing VAD.

Medical professionals consistently testify that predicting life expectancy is notoriously unreliable. Even experienced clinicians have described prognosis as “an educated guess.” Studies show doctors frequently overestimate life left, countering claims from opponents that “patients live longer than predicted”.

In short, using a timeframe as a gatekeeping mechanism is neither fair nor clinically sound. The NT parliamentary committee evaluated this evidence and concluded that eligibility should be based on intolerable and hopeless suffering, not an arbitrary timeframe.

Submission 321 to the committee, from Dying with Dignity NSW, captured moving examples of the suffering caused by this restriction. It highlighted the plight of people living for years with progressive, neurodegenerative diseases – unable to move, breathe unaided, or communicate effectively – yet denied access to VAD because they are not deemed “close enough” to death, or if they are, they are likely deemed incompetent.

Such cases strike at the heart of why VAD exists: to alleviate intolerable mental and physical suffering when no other pathway remains. Conditioning eligibility on arbitrary prognostic estimates undermines the very compassion these laws are meant to serve.

It should also be remembered that the majority who benefit from VAD laws will never use them. The mere knowledge that such an option exists – that control rests with them if unbearable suffering arises -provides immense comfort, especially to elderly Australians witnessing the decline of their own bodies.

The Northern Territory has a historic opportunity, once again, to lead Australia in humane lawmaking. In 1995, the NT pioneered end-of-life choice through the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. It was the first in the world.

By following the ACT’s example and rejecting rigid prognostic criteria, the Territory can again set a compassionate and principled standard that upholds autonomy, dignity, and mercy.

To include a timeframe in eligibility would be to perpetuate a major flaw in the existing Australian state model. To omit one, as the ACT has done, would affirm that the object of VAD is not to limit numbers, but to relieve suffering consistent with respect for individual choice.

In doing so, the Northern Territory can again demonstrate leadership, wisdom, and humanity in end-of-life law reform.

Marshall Perron, Queensland.

Mr Perron is a former NT Chief Minister and introduced the the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act into Parliament.

If you want your letter to the editor published send it to ntindependent@protonmail.com. Please include your name, address and phone number for verification. We will only publish your name and suburb or town. We do reserve the right to edit the letter for length and clarity purposes. PRIVACY POLICY: You can find our privacy policy by clicking here.