A Comparative Analysis of Voluntary Assisted Dying Legislation: Perspectives from Australia and the Netherlands

Abstract

Background: The legal and ethical debate surrounding voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is a pressing global issue. This practice presents a profound challenge for policymakers seeking to balance individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions with the protection of vulnerable populations. This study addresses a gap in the literature by providing a detailed comparative analysis of the legislative and implementation frameworks for VAD in Australia and the Netherlands, two jurisdictions with distinct approaches to this complex issue.

Methods: This article is based on a qualitative, desk-based review and comparative legislative and policy analysis. Primary data sources include legislative documents from both jurisdictions, official government reports, and a select body of academic literature. The analysis was structured around key regulatory components, including eligibility criteria, assessment processes, and oversight mechanisms, to identify and compare the similarities and differences between the two models.

Results: The Netherlands, a pioneer in this field, operates under a national legal framework emphasizing "due care criteria" and a well-established system of oversight by euthanasia review committees. Its implementation has been supported by specialized consultation services. Australia, in contrast, has adopted a state-by-state approach with highly specific eligibility criteria, such as defined prognoses for terminal illness, and a multi-layered assessment process. Both models incorporate distinct safeguards aimed at preventing abuse, but their practical application and cultural contexts differ significantly.

Discussion: The comparative analysis reveals that while both countries share a goal of providing compassionate end-of-life care, their divergent legislative and implementation models offer unique lessons. The Dutch experience highlights the importance of robust, long-standing consultation services, while the Australian approach demonstrates the challenges and opportunities of a more prescriptive, state-specific legislative process. Navigating the delicate balance between autonomy and safeguarding vulnerable individuals remains central to both systems.

Conclusion: A deep understanding of the complexities of VAD regulation is essential for navigating end-of-life care. The comparative insights from Australia and the Netherlands provide a valuable roadmap for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and societies worldwide grappling with these profound ethical and legal questions.