Independent for Mersey Mike Gaffney says the Federal Government needs to changes its VAD laws

Rules preventing the use of telehealth to access voluntary assisted dying will disadvantage Tasmanians in rural areas, doctors say. Find out why.

Independent MLC, Michael Gaffney talking about the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill in the Tasmanian Legislative Council in 2020. Picture: Zak Simmonds

A prohibition on using telehealth to access voluntary assisted dying will severely disadvantage Tasmanians living in rural and regional areas, doctors and the government say.

The MP behind Tasmania’s VAD laws, Michael Gaffney, has also urged the federal government to change the laws to protect doctors from prosecution and save patients from further pain and suffering.

It follows a Federal Court ruling on Thursday that VAD was considered suicide under the Commonwealth criminal code, meaning doctors could be charged under laws that prohibit using a carriage service, including telehealth, email or phone, to provide information about suicide.

A Tasmanian government spokesman said Premier Jeremy Rockliff wrote to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Health Minister Mark Butler more than a year ago “noting issues for Tasmania associated with the commonwealth criminal code prohibiting medical professionals from using telehealth in connection with voluntary assisted dying”.

“At the time, the Premier urged the federal government to amend the commonwealth criminal code to bring it in line with state legislation for voluntary assisted dying to address these issues,” she said.

“This is incredibly disappointing for Tasmanians living in rural and regional areas of the State.”

Mr Gaffney said while the court’s decision was disappointing, “it’s not uncommon for laws to be lagging behind what’s actually happening in the wider community”.

Independent MLC Mike Gaffney.

“One only has to look at the history and arduous legal pathway for sensitive social issues, such as women’s rights, abortion, same sex marriage, discrimination and now VAD,” he said.

“It comes as no surprise that the Federal Court once again is behind the times.

“The decision by the Federal Court is very “city centric” when telehealth is being used effectively in so many other medical and health procedures and here we have a situation where it might not be possible for the individual to actually be moved from their home because of the intolerable suffering and pain it may cause.

“The carriage laws were introduced by the Commonwealth for a very different reason to voluntary assisted dying.”

AMA president Professor Steve Robson repeated calls for the laws to be changed.

“A prohibition on the use of telehealth by doctors could significantly impact people living in regional, rural and remote communities who may not have the same access to medical services as those in the cities and who may need to travel long distances to see a doctor face-to-face.

“It also disadvantages patients who are physically unable to travel, even at relatively short distances, due to their medical condition.”