Decriminalization of Euthanasia in New South Wales: A Critical Analysis

Criminal Law/ Criminology 1
CRIMINAL LAW/ CRIMINOLOGY
Name
Course
Institution
Instructor
Date

Criminal Law/ Criminology 2
Criminal Law/ Criminology
Introduction
Decriminalization of euthanasia in New South Wales (NSW) has remained a contentious
issue that has sparked great debate between the proponents and opponents of the debate.
Voluntary euthanasia (VET) and assisted suicide have been debated where these activities;
nonetheless, happen not infrequently in NSW, in part since palliative care cannot relieve
physical, as well as psychological suffering along with pain in all cases. The law, which linked to
voluntary euthanasia in New South Wales, is the Crimes Act as provided in section 18(1)1. Under
the provisions of this section, killing has been committed if a person causes somebody’s death by
acting with “irresponsible indifference” towards human life or with the intention to murder. In
this respect, the law is underprovided. The law is too unfair since it does not treat people
regularly. Some people may be assisted to die on their own conditions because of their
understanding plus connections whilst some people can speed their death through their demise
by the denial of life-sustaining medical treatment2. However, other people do not have entrée to
the means to terminate life. Euthanasia should be decriminalized in New South Wales because
individuals should be given the right to die with dignity and promote self-determination.
The paper will argue for the decriminalization of voluntary euthanasia in NSW because
of the many benefits that it will bring to citizens that wish to stop the suffering and pain because
of terminal or incurable diseases.
1 Chelsea Wallis, ‘A Phronetic Inquiry into the Australian Euthanasia Experience: Challenging Paternalistic Medical
Culture and Unrepresentative Health Policy’, (2018) 25 Journal of Law and Medicine 837-858.
2 Bartels Lorna. and Otlowski Margaret. ‘A right to die? Euthanasia and the law in Australia’.. (2010)17 (4) J Law
Med 532–55.

Criminal Law/ Criminology 3
Critical Analysis
Autonomy/Self-Determination
The primary argument in supporting decriminalization of euthanasia is founded on the
rule of independence or the right to self-determination. Based on the law of autonomy, each
individual has worth; therefore, is worthy of reverence, is the holder of fundamental liberties
along with rights, and is the ultimate determiner of his/her fate. This implies that in NSW, the
person who has management ability, has the right to have the ultimate control of their body, as
well as must be in a position to decide on the way and when the person will die provided this
does not impede with the fundamental rights of other citizens. Thus, it is this person autonomy,
the ability of persons to decide, as well as hunt their specific life-span that is claimed to offer
people their unique moral position, as well as is a necessary element of the self-respect, which
connects to coherent personhood. In addition, a further component of the rule of autonomy is
that its application must not impede the rights of other people. The protection of the current
lawful ban on euthanasia in NSW is an unwarrantable on the rights of those individuals who
could decide to be killed. Thus, in order to defend the patient’s concern in autonomy, physicians
must be free to act on the demand of an informed, as well as psychologically competent patient
for active voluntary euthanasia with no fear of criminal responsibility3.
Consequently, if the rule of autonomy is endorsed as a proper basis for the
decriminalization or corroboration of voluntary euthanasia, then there could be no need to
dispassionately investigate the superiority of life considerations-certainly, it could be quiet
unfortunate to do so. This implies that any endeavour to enforce a qualitative evaluation of the
3 Rojas, Rick, ‘An Act of Murder or Mercy? A Scientist’s Death Rivets Australians’. (2018)New York Times. A9.

Criminal Law/ Criminology 4
life of the patient as a foundation for voluntary euthanasia could be a breach of the need for
justice plus could be totally divergent from the rule of patient self-determination. Many patients
will inescapably have diverse purposes along with values that may be esteemed through giving
impact to the interests of the patient in autonomy and permitting the person to undertake choices
founded on their own superiority of life appraisal. Therefore, the primary reflection must be the
patient’s decision, founded on the patient’s prejudiced assessments of the situations whether
inspired by a panic of pain4. In addition, it should be appreciated that stringent observance to the
idea that autonomy essentially eliminates any dependence on utilitarian principles as a
foundation of the active euthanasia. Therefore, the legalization of euthanasia should be based on
the utilitarian rule that demands the decriminalization of some acts of suicide, as well as
euthanasia. Based on pure utilitarian beliefs, active euthanasia in NSW could be reasonable in
situations in which the patient, plus people entailed in care of the patient, is suffering equilibrium
of pain above pleasure and in which the murder of the patient could, on utilitarian assessments,
generate the maximum good for the maximum number5.
Nonetheless, this shows a primary flaw in utilitarian claims as a foundation for firmly
voluntary euthanasia because they use with the same power to circumstances of involuntary
euthanasia, which is a practice that should be unambiguously used. Based on the tenets of the
utilitarian principles, given there exist equilibrium of suffering above pleasure, active euthanasia
could be vindicated if it may optimize the gains in general, not considering of whether the patient
4 Keown, John. ‘"Voluntary Assisted Dying" in Australia: The Victorian Parliamentary Committee's Tenuous Case for
Legalization’(2018) 33(1), Issues In Law & Medicine, 55-81.
5 Peretti-Watel, Patrick., Bendiane, Marc., & Moatti, Jean-Paul. ‘Attitudes toward palliative care, conceptions of
euthanasia and opinions about its legalization among French physicians’. (2005) 60(8), Social Science & Medicine,
1781-1793.