Independent MP Kate Chaney has introduced a private member’s bill seeking to remove a federal legal barrier that prevents some terminally ill Australians from using telehealth during the voluntary assisted dying process.
The issue stems from a provision in the Commonwealth Criminal Code that prohibits the use of “carriage services” to incite suicide. Although voluntary assisted dying, or VAD, is legal in almost every Australian jurisdiction, the provision has been interpreted as preventing doctors from using phones, email, internet or video calls to provide certain advice about accessing VAD medication.
The restriction has had a particularly significant effect on people in rural, regional and remote areas, where shortages of VAD-trained doctors can require seriously ill patients to travel long distances for consultations. Some patients have died before completing the process.
Chaney introduced her bill as pressure grows on the Albanese government to amend the Criminal Code. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is expected to introduce similar legislation in the Senate, although both proposals would face difficulty progressing without government support.
The push has also gained support within Labor. Delegates at the party’s recent National Conference voted to amend Labor’s platform to support telehealth for end-of-life care and committed to allowing Labor parliamentarians a conscience vote on VAD matters. However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reportedly remained opposed to telehealth consultations for VAD, arguing that face-to-face meetings can provide important protections for vulnerable patients. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has also raised concerns about potential elder abuse.
The debate has been given added urgency by the experience of 58-year-old Adelaide woman Sandra Sarantou, who is preparing to die through VAD after being diagnosed nine weeks ago with aggressive lung cancer. Having previously worked as a paramedic in rural South Australia, Sarantou said she felt guilty that she could access VAD while people living in isolated areas might not.
“It’s even a struggle just to move from one end from the house to another … for those people to travel hours to possibly see a doctor and not get the chance for VAD is just horrific,” she said.
Sarantou urged the federal government to act, saying: “Their time is ticking and they have to suffer. It’s cruel, it’s not fair,” and, “Please change these laws, make it fair and available for everyone despite where they are living.”
Advocates argue the restriction has become an equity issue. Go Gentle’s latest State of VAD report found that 39 per cent of applicants in 2024–25 lived in rural, regional or remote areas. South Australian GP Scott Lewis said he had travelled thousands of kilometres to reach patients because telehealth was unavailable for key consultations.
Legal academic Dr Christopher Rudge said telehealth could be permitted without dismantling existing safeguards, noting that state VAD systems already require rigorous eligibility assessments, independent practitioners and oversight.
Chaney’s bill therefore places the federal restriction — and the unequal access it can create — directly before parliament, increasing pressure on the Albanese government to decide whether telehealth should become part of Australia’s VAD system.