Verifying IVF births involving donated sperm, eggs or embryos: changes to the law in New South Wales

A previous post discussed the case of Natalie Parker, an Australian mother of two young boys who, following the conclusion of IVF treatment, donated three spare embryos to a woman she met on the Embryo Donation Network, a place where donors and recipients can advertise and make contact.

Parker was prepared to donate the embryos, but with conditions attached: she wanted ongoing contact between the genetic siblings.

Usually a recipient of a donor egg or embryo will have no reason to hide the fact of pregnancy from their ART (assisted reproductive technology) provider.  Pregnancy will be a shared goal of both parties.

In this case, however, the recipient evidently wished to sever contact with Parker, or to be free of the conditions that had been imposed.  The recipient apparently lied to IVF Australia in order to conceal the fact of pregnancy.

She was just thinking about the baby”, Parker said, “and now she’s got the baby she wants to enjoy it herself and not acknowledge it’s got other connections outside the family”.

“They’ve just used me for what they wanted and then just tossed [me] aside”, she later told 60 Minutes.

Legal and regulatory changes have now been introduced into NSW that are intended to reduce the likelihood of incidents like this occurring in future.  This post briefly reviews them.

 

Changes to the Code of Practice for Assisted Reproductive Technology Units

The Code of Practice for Assisted Reproductive Technology Units, which is overseen by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee of the Fertility Society of Australia now requires the ART provider to obtain a written declaration from the recipient, prior to the treatment cycle, that the patient/couple will “provide information about the treatment cycle outcome”.

In this case, the recipient of Mrs Parker’s embryo declined to attend for an IVF test to confirm pregnancy, and may have told IVF Australia that she had miscarried in order to convey the impression that she was not pregnant.

Changes to the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW)

Amendments to the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW) beef up the counselling requirements that apply to IVF providers, requiring them – in cases where the woman receiving treatment involved the use of donated gametes – to receive information about the “extended list of matters” set out in s 13(3).  These matters include the obligation that the ART provider has to obtain information about the recipient and any offspring born as a result of the procedure: see s 13(3)(c).

Secondly, the legislation imposes an obligation on ART providers to take reasonable steps to find out, between 1 month and no later than 4 months following treatment, whether the recipient of the gamete or embryo became pregnant as a result of the treatment: s 30(5).

The legislation refers to a woman using a “donated gamete”, but this term includes a reference to a gamete used to create a donated embryo”: s 4B.

Section 30(7) requires the ART provider to take reasonable steps to find out, between 10 months and no later than 15 months after the ART treatment whether the pregnancy resulted in a live birth, and the full name, sex, and date of birth of the offspring.

Thirdly, record-keeping obligations have also been strengthened.  Section 31 of the Act requires ART providers to keep records of the matters in respect of which they are required to take reasonable steps to verify.

For a woman who has received treatment using a donated gamete, the ART provider must keep records that indicate whether the recipient became pregnant within a month of receiving the treatment, unless the ART provider does not know this (s 31(1)(b1)).

Where a child has been born as a result of an ART procedure, the ART provider must keep details of the full name, sex and date of birth of the offspring, as well as details of the birth mother and gamete donor: s 31(1)(c).

The ART provider must also record, within 15 months following the provision of ART treatment, whether the recipient gave birth as a result: s 31(1)(c1).

Under s 33, where an ART provider becomes aware that a child was born following treatment involving a donated gamete, they must provide (to the Secretary of the Health Department) full particulars of the records that they are required to keep under s 31.

Where an ART provider does not know – 16 months following treatment involving a donated gamete – whether a child was born as a result, the Secretary must also be informed.

Fourthly, under s 34, the Secretary is authorized to issue directions to a health service provider requiring them to provide information for the purposes of determining whether a child was born as a result of ART treatment involving a donated gamete.

Fifthly, the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 provides for the establishment of a “central register” to allow access to “identifying information…about a donor by an adult offspring of the donor” who was born as a result of a procedure involving the donor’s donated gamete (ss32A, 32C).

Finally, s 62 of the Act has also been amended.  S 62 creates an offence for giving false or misleading information “in response to a request for information that an ART provider is required to obtain, or to take steps to obtain, under Part 2.”

This offence provision would apply to the recipient of a donated egg or embryo who gave false information to the effect that they did not fall pregnant as a result of the ART procedure involving the donated embryo.

This offence has a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units for an individual, which is 200 X $110 = $22,000, a substantial monetary penalty.

In summary, the focus of the amending legislation is to require the ART provider to obtain information about whether or not a recipient of donor eggs or embryos falls pregnant, and the details of any child who is subsequently born.

The legislation also seeks to ensure that there is no repeat of a situation where a recipient lies to the ART provider about whether or not they became pregnant or have given birth to a child involving donated eggs or embryos.

Why the media gets it wrong on obesity

“I’m not overweight”, writes columnist Katrina Grace Kelly in The Australian.  “I’m just the helpless pawn of a vicious corporate conspiracy”.

Amusing read, but it also illustrates why public health researchers are failing to cut-through with governments and the broader community on obesity.

“The ‘obesogenic environment’ is the culprit here, apparently”, Kelly writes, referring to a recently-released report from the Obesity Collective, and to recommendations from the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia.

“The creators of the obesogenic environment are government, society in general and the harbingers of all evil – corporations, specifically, companies in the food and beverage sector, now being referred to as Big Food.”

She adds: “We are fortunate to have researchers on the public payroll, so they can conduct studies to arrive at such previously unimaginable conclusions”.

 

It’s all personal responsibility, stupid

Kelly’s beliefs about obesity illustrate why the problem is so hard to tackle at a population level.

The dominant framing of obesity as purely a matter of personal responsibility seems obvious, intuitive.  No one is force feeding us, right?

But it has a downside: if you’re fat, look in the mirror, you only have yourself to blame.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of adults who are overweight or obese has increased from 56% in 1995, to 67% in 2017-18, with an additional 900,000 adults becoming overweight in the 3 years since the previous survey in 2014-15.

There is a troubling trend here, but for many people, it’s difficult to accept that the causes of the trend might be different from the causes of an individual’s obesity.

 

Personal policy, and public policy

If you are obese, having greater personal responsibility is an excellent suggestion – it’s an excellent “personal policy”.

But it turns out to be a rather silly and unproductive explanation for the trend towards population weight gain.

For one thing, personal responsibility is not a new idea; in fact, it’s a strategic failure, so urging people to have more of it is unlikely to reduce obesity rates in future.

Viewing obesity in terms of the failure of personal responsibility also means that the dramatic trend towards weight gain over the past couple of generations – affecting many millions of people in most countries of the world – is best explained in terms of an unprecedented, mass deterioration in self-control.

Who could have guessed?!

Framing obesity in terms of individual responsibility probably does little to help those who are obese, although it might make the rest of us feel smug.  It also deflects attention from both the causes of, and the solutions to, the problem at a population level.  And that’s what healthy public policy needs to be directed towards.

Are you interested in health and medical law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law, a Graduate Diploma in Health Law, and single unit enollment.  For more information, click here, or here.  For more information on what it’s like to study at the Law School, click here.

Beyond the “hot tub”: Australia’s runaway obesity epidemic

How sure are you that you won’t lose your feet or toes to diabetes?

According to a new report by the Obesity Collective, based at the Charles Perkins Centre at the University of Sydney, obesity in Australia is getting much, much worse.

Between 2014-15 and 2017-18, the obesity rate in Australian adults rose from 27.9% to 31.3%.

In other words, over the past 3 years, an additional 900,000 Australians became obese.

Sixty-seven percent of Australian adults are now either overweight or obese (2017-18), an increase from 63.4% in 2014-15.

That’s astonishing.

Astonishingly bad news.

Australia now ranks 5th out of 44 OECD countries in the obesity stakes – it’s a race we shouldn’t be trying to win.

If this trend persists, how will we look in 2027-28?

By that time, nearly nine million Australians will be obese.

Think of the cost – not only costs to our taxpayer-funded health care system, but premature deaths from cardiovascular disease, obesity-related cancers, limbs, feet and toes amputated due to our runaway diabetes epidemic.

According to Diabetes Australia, 4,400 diabetes-related amputations already occur each year in Australia.

That’s set to get worse.

 

Australia’s runaway obesity epidemic needs to become an election issue

How long till we see concerted national action that is not choreographed by the big food lobby?

Did you know that the Australian Food & Grocery Council seeks a “constructive and collaborative response to obesity”?

They’ve been saying stuff like that for years.

I call it the “hot tub approach”.  Let’s all jump into the hot tub together and soap each other’s backs, and see what we can achieve…together.

This “constructive and collaborative approach” – characterised by voluntarism, and weak accountability structures – has been official policy in Canberra for years.

It would be great if it actually worked.

But if it was going to work, wouldn’t we be seeing positive results by now?

 

Life outside of the “hot tub”

There is life beyond the hot tub.

Feasible policy options to halt Australia’s obesity epidemic have been identified.  We know what we could and should do.

The “Australian Obesity Prevention Consensus” sets out an evidence-based policy agenda for the federal government.

Implementing the (surprisingly strong and certainly welcome) recommendations of the Senate Select Committee into the Obesity Epidemic in Australia would also be a good place to start.

The INFORMAS Network monitors the actions of state and federal governments and has issued scorecards on the performance of Australian governments, with priority recommendations.  (Watch out for the 2019 Food Policy Index Progress report, to be launched on 2 April 2019).

These reports include recommendations for legal and regulatory changes that the processed food industry will resist.

Like implementing credible – as distinct from voluntary, weak and loophole-ridden – standards to protect children from exposure to unhealthy food and drink marketing.

Like setting ambitious, time-sensitive and independently-monitored targets for reformulation to be met by food manufacturers, retailers and caterers.

Like a health levy on sugary drinks.  (Remember folks, at the end of the day, it’s only sugar water, not holy water).

Like making the Health Star Rating system mandatory.

No one likes sharing hot, soapy water with the folks from “big food” more than me, but the statistics speak for themselves.

Over the last 10 years, the number of Australians with obesity has more than doubled, from 2.7 million (2007-08) to 5.8 million in 2017-18.

It’s time to get out of the hot tub, and to implement long-recommended, evidence-based policies to create healthier food environments.

Put another Winfield on the Barbie

Having actor Paul Hogan headline Cure Cancer’s “Barbecure” makes no sense to me.

Put another shrimp on the barbie, I get it.  But so what?

Hogan may regret the staggeringly successful “Anyhow, have a Winfield” advertising campaign he headed in the 1970s, but his presence in a cure cancer campaign is inept.  It muddies the message.

Winfield is a brand of cigarettes now owned by British American Tobacco Australia.

Of his former campaign for Winfield, Hogan has said “Yeah, we were encouraging people to smoke.

“Young ones were taking up smoking and all going for Winfield. It was a staggering success but I was a drug dealer. But who knew then?”

This is not to suggest that Hogan is not sincere in wanting to help.  I’m sure he is.

But why does an organisation raising funds to support cancer research ask one of the most effective promoters of tobacco in Australian history, someone who is still, apparently, a smoker – to front the campaign?

Curing cancer…a tale of two strategies

Cure Cancer’s Barbeque concept seems to be about raising money for what we might call “techy” solutions to treating cancer – funding research towards a new drug or therapy.

(Must say, though, I love the idea about hosting a barbie, telling the guest list they’re not invited and hitting them for hard cold cash instead).

Cancer research is, of course, worthy and deserving of funding.  Who knows, many of us may one day benefit from such research and the therapies that result.

But there’s another way to cure cancer as well…it’s called reducing the risk that Australians will get cancer in future.

Using smart public policies, we can prevent the risk that Australians will get heart disease, and diabetes too.

Unfortunately, preventive health enjoys a fraction of the profile – and almost none of the money – that techy solutions like research towards new drugs or therapies attract.

This could be because one important dimension of prevention at the population level is regulation, and that makes prevention a political matter.

Australia has a pretty shabby record in using law and regulation to reduce modifiable risk factors for the non-communicable diseases that are responsible for the overwhelming share of death and disability in this country.

When it comes to food and diet-related risk factors, for example, see the scorecard and priority recommendations for Australian governments issued by the Global Obesity Centre, a WHO Collaborating Centre for Obesity Prevention, at Deakin University.

How many lifetimes till these are implemented, I wonder?

A decade ago, the National Preventative Health Taskforce released a blueprint for improving the health of Australians.

I can no longer find that report on the Australian Government’s website.

Although the government has raised the excise on tobacco and implemented plain tobacco packaging, no formal targets have been set for reductions in obesity or dietary risk factors, and prevention policy has been described as “flapping in the wind” (Swannell 2016).

Preventing cancer is “curing” cancer too

The Australian Preventive Health Agency, which was established to spearhead preventive efforts, and to fund preventive research, was de-funded and is extinct.

This move damaged momentum on preventive health in Australia, as Leeder, Wutzke, and many others have pointed out.

Which is a shame, because preventing cancer is “curing” cancer too.

Are you interested in health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law with mid-year entry.  See here and here for more information.

Manslaughter by gross negligence, or systemic failure? Implications of the Dr Hadiza Bawa-Barba case for Australia

Sydney Law School and the Menzies Centre for Health Policy at the University of Sydney are co-hosting an evening seminar entitled “Manslaughter by gross negligence, or systemic failure?  Implications of the Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba case for Australia”.

This event will be held at the Law School on Thurs 8 November, 6.00-7.30pm.  You can register here.

The event features Professor Ian Freckelton QC as the keynote speaker, with responses from a panel including Dr Penny Browne, Chief Medical Officer, Avant Mutual, Dr Andrew McDonald, Associate Professor in Paediatrics, Western Sydney University School of Medicine and former shadow Health Minister and Jane Butler, Senior Associate at Catherine Henry Lawyers.

You can find out more about the event here.

Background to the Dr Bawa-Garba case

On Friday morning, 18 February 2011, six-year-old Jack Alcock was admitted to the Leicester Royal Infirmary Hospital in England in a limp and unresponsive state, following 12 hours of vomiting and diarrhoea.

By 9.20pm that night he was dead, due to sepsis and organ failure arising from pneumonia, which remained undiagnosed during the day.  Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba was the doctor on duty in the Children’s Assessment Unit at the hospital, where Jack remained for most of the day.

On 4 November 2015, Dr Bawa-Garba was found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence.  Her conviction sparked scrutiny and criticism from doctors around the world.

Following her conviction, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service suspended Dr Bawa-Garba from practice for 12 months, but decided against striking her from the medical register.  The UK General Medical Council appealed this decision to the High Court, which removed her from the register in January 2018.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Tribunal, re-instating the suspension of Dr Bawa-Garba for 12 months, subject to review.

On the day of the tragedy, Dr Bawa-Garba was covering the Children’s Assessment Unit because she had volunteered to fill in for a colleague who was absent.  She worked a double shift, without any breaks, also covering cases in the general paediatrics ward, and the Emergency Department.

In a letter of support for Dr Bawa-Garba, 159 pediatricians condemned the punitive approach taken against one doctor “against a background of numerous systemic failures”, adding that they would be confident to employ Dr Bawa-Garba upon her re-instatement to the medical register.

In this seminar, Professor Ian Freckelton QC will review the Bawa-Garba case and consider its implications for medical practice in Australia.  Was Dr Bawa-Garba treated unfairly, and how should the Medical Board of Australia (and in NSW, the NSW Medical Council) and other professional bodies respond in such cases?  How should community expectations be met in tragic cases like this one?  Are there solutions to the staffing challenges that place unreasonable demands on medical practitioners?

Are you interested in studying health law?

Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law (MHL) and Graduate Diploma in Health Law that includes units of study in medical law, public health law, mental health law and global health law and governance. It is open to both legally qualified candidates as well as those without a law degree. For more information, click on the following links: Master of Health Law; Units of study on offer in 2019; About health law study.

Update and summary guide to the WHO report: Advancing the right to health: the vital role of law

In September 2018 the World Health Organisation published an Update and Summary Guide to the report Advancing the Right to Health: the Vital Role of Law.

[See here for a previous post on the full report].

The summary Guide, like the full report, was a collaboration between the World Health Organisation, International Development Law Organisation, Sydney Law School, and the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

The aim of the original report, published in January 2017, was to raise awareness about the role that the reform of public health law can play in advancing the right to health and creating the conditions in which people can live healthy lives.

The Update and Summary Guide keeps the same focus: providing an introduction to the role of law in health development, with links to the full report, while also drawing attention to topics that were beyond the scope of the original report, and to links between law and the health-related Sustainable Development Goals.

The Update and Summary Guide integrates new health data and refers to new developments, including a list of highly cost–effective legal measures for reducing risk factors for non-communicable diseases (“NCDs”), drawn from the updated Appendix 3 of the WHO Global Action Plan for Prevention and Control of NCDs. It also references selected new decisions, such as the unsuccessful claim by a tobacco company against Uruguay’s tobacco control laws, and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Colombia confirming the right to receive information about the health effects of sugary drinks.

Accessing assisted dying in Victoria: how will it happen, exactly?

Last November, Victoria passed the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, becoming the first Australian State to legalise assisted dying.

The Act comes into force on 19 June 2019.

How will a person lawfully use the Act?  This post provides a brief walk through the procedure established by the Act.

This is not the first time Victoria has been at the vanguard of law reform on a hotly contested bioethical issue.  In 1988, Victoria introduced Australia’s first advance directives legislation, the Medical Treatment Act (it was repealed on 12 March 2018, replaced by the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016).  Earlier, in 1984, Victoria passed the Infertility (Medical Procedures) Act 1984, the world’s first legislation regulating IVF and human embryo research,  now replaced by the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008.

Can’t talk about it

Prior to the Parliamentary vote, former Prime Minister Paul Keating argued passionately against the Act, writing that “The experience of overseas jurisdictions suggests that pressures for further liberalisation are irresistible”.

The Act is said to contain 68 safeguards to guard against abuse.

One of the most interesting safeguards is section 8(1), which states that a medical practitioner must not initiate a discussion with a patient that is “in substance about voluntary assisted dying”.

A doctor who does so engages in unprofessional conduct under (Victoria’s version of) the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.

Section 75 of the Act also imposes mandatory notification requirements [to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency] on a medical practitioner who reasonably believes that another registered health practitioner has initiated a discussion about voluntary assisted dying, or offered to provide voluntary assisted dying in a manner that is not in accordance with the Act.

Mandatory notification requirements are imposed on an employer in the same circumstances (s 76).

Before assisted dying was legalized in Victoria, there was nothing unlawful about talking to a terminally ill person about assisted dying.  The topic was not “off the table”, so long as no action was taken.

But now, drawing a person’s attention to a lawful course of action under an Act of Parliament apparently amounts to reportable misconduct, in order to ensure that zealous health care workers do not nudge sick and distressed, aging or disabled people towards “euthanasia”.

Right to opt-out

There is no obligation on a medical practitioner to assist a patient to die under the Act.

Under section 7, a medical practitioner who has a conscientious objection to voluntary assisted dying has the right to refuse to provide information about assisted dying, to participate in the process the Act establishes, and to supply drugs or be present at the time an assisted dying substance is administered.

A complex process

With 143 sections, the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act is a complex piece of legislation.

This is intentional: the legislative requirements that must be satisfied before assistance in dying can lawfully be given are intended to act as safeguards against misuse.

Eligibility

Victoria’s assisted dying regime is only open to adults who have been resident in Victoria for at least 12 months – this is clear from section 9 [s 9(1)(b)].

This is intended to prevent Swiss-style euthanasia tourism – the kind of tourism illustrated in the film “Me before You” starring Emilia Clarke and Sam Claflin.

A person doesn’t meet the eligibility criteria for assistance unless they are suffering from an incurable disease that has reached such an advanced state that death is expected within 6 months, and the disease is causing suffering that is intolerable to the person [s 9(1)(d)].

One exception to this is in s 9(4), which allows a person to access assistance if they have a neurodegenerative disease that will cause death within 12 months.

Coordinating medical practitioner

The process of assisted dying under the Act begins when a person makes a “first request” for access to voluntary assisted dying to a registered medical practitioner (s 11).

This request may be verbal.  The medical practitioner may accept or refuse the request, but if they accept they must record the request, and become the patient’s coordinating medical practitioner (ss 13-15).

A coordinating medical practitioner must be either a medical specialist, or a vocationally registered general practitioner.

[A vocationally registered GP attracts higher Medicare rebates and special Medicare item numbers.  There are a variety of pathways to accessing these higher rebates, including through membership of the Royal Australasian College of GPs, or by meeting requirements for vocational registration by the General Practice Recognition Eligibility Committee.]

The coordinating medical practitioner must carry out approved assessment training and then assess whether the patient meets the eligibility criteria set out in s 9. (Approved assessment training must be approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services [see s 114]).

In order to be eligible for voluntary assisted dying, a person must have “decision-making capacity” in relation to voluntary assisted dying: s 9(1)(c).

The term “decision-making capacity” is defined in s 4, and it requires a person to be able to understand information, retain it, and use it or weight it in order to reach a decision.  The person must also be able to communicate their decision to a medical practitioner.

The coordinating medical practitioner must be satisfied that the patient is acting voluntarily and without coercion, and that their request for assistance to die is enduring (s 20).

If they are assessed as eligible, the coordinating medical practitioner must report to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board (established under s 92 – see s 21) and refer the patient for a consulting assessment (s 22).

Consulting assessment

The consulting medical practitioner who carries out the this assessment must have  completed “assessment training” (s 26) and must be a specialist or vocationally registered GP with at least 5 years’ experience and have “relevant expertise and experience in the disease, illness or medical condition expected to cause the [patient’s] death” (ss 23-24).

If the consulting medical practitioner concludes that all the eligibility criteria are met, they must notify the person and also notify the Board (s 30).

Formal written request

At that point, the patient may make a written declaration requesting access to voluntary assisted dying which meets the requirements set out in s 34.

This request must be signed by the patient in the presence of 2 witnesses and the coordinating medical practitioner.

Witnesses need to meet requirements set out in s 35 and must also sign a certificate dealing with matters set out in s 36.

Final request

The patient may then make a final request under s 37.  This final request must be at least 9 days after their first request (made under s 11), and at least one day after they were assessed by the consulting medical practitioner as eligible (s 38).  However, the requirement for at least 9 days of reflection following the first request may be shortened if the person’s death is imminent and they are likely to die within that 9 day period.

Following the final request, the patient must then appoint a contact person who, amongst other things, must return unused assisted dying drugs to pharmacists (ss 39-40).

The coordinating medical practitioner must then review all the documentation and certify that the request and assessment process complies with the Act.  They must give the completed final review form to the Board (s 41).

Voluntary assisted dying permits

This enables the coordinating medical practitioner to apply for a “voluntary assisted dying permit” for the patient (s 43).

There are 2 kinds of voluntary assisted dying permit.

The coordinating medical practitioner can apply for a “self-administration permit” under s 47 if the patient is physically capable of self-administering the drug or poison.  The drug in question must be specified in the permit.

Under s 45, a “self-administration permit” authorises the coordinating medical practitioner to prescribe and supply a quantity of drug for self-administration by the patient in sufficient quantity to cause death.  It also authorises possession of the drug by the permit holder, and possession by the contact person of unused drug – for the purposes of returning it to a pharmacist.

Alternatively, the coordinating medical practitioner can apply for a practitioner administration permit where the patient is physical incapable of self-administering or ingesting the poison or drug (s 48).

As you might expect, a practitioner administration permit authorises the coordinating medical practitioner to administer the drug in the presence of a witness only if the patient is physically incapable of doing so and the patient has decision-making capacity at the time the request for administration of the drug is made (s 46(c)).

This means that a patient cannot make an advance directive for assisted dying.

The decision to issue a permit is made by the “Secretary” ie the Head of the Department of Health and Human Services, doubtless under delegation (s 49).

Section 57 sets out the information that the coordinating medical practitioner must give the patient before prescribing a drug under a self-administration permit.  This includes information about how to self-administer the “voluntary assisted dying substance”, and the fact that the person is under no obligation to fill the prescription or to use it.  The drug itself must be stored in a locked box that satisfies prescribed specifications.

The Act also contains labelling and storage requirements, and requirements imposed on pharmacists.

Administration requests

Section 64 states that the patient may make an administration request to the coordinating medical practitioner, in the presence of a witness, to administer the drug specified in a practitioner administration permit.

The person making the request must be the subject of the permit, they must have decision-making capacity in relation to voluntary assisted dying, and they must understand that the drug is to be administered immediately after the request is made.

The coordinating medical practitioner will only have a practitioner administration permit if the person is physically incapable of self-administering the drug to themselves (s 46).

The drug can then be administered.

The witness and the coordinating medical practitioner must jointly fill out a form called the “coordinating medical practitioner administration form”, which must be sent to the Board (ss 65-66).

After the death

The death must be reported as voluntary assisted dying under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1966 (s 67).  The Coroner must also be routinely informed of such deaths (s 67(2)).

Section 80 protects a medical practitioner who acts in accordance with the Act from any kind of liability, including liability for unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct.

Part 8 of the Act includes a range of offences for people who take actions otherwise than in accordance with the Act.

Will doctors choose to participate in the process?

It remains to be seen whether Victorian medical practitioners regard the procedures established by the Act as so complex or cumbersome that they prefer to provide assistance informally, rather than triggering the Act’s processes and subjecting themselves to scrutiny.

I’d be surprised if there were not at least a few doctors who adopt this course of action.

The legislation is complex.  Doctors may also – again, for reasons of self-protection – confine themselves to traditional forms of palliative care.  Those who take a conservative view on the legalization of assisted dying may urge doctors to do this.

For example, if a coordinating medical practitioner administers a drug to a person who is the subject of a practitioner administration permit otherwise than as authorised by that permit, they are liable to life imprisonment (life or such other term as fixed by the Court) (s 83).

It is an offence to fail to give copies of forms to the Board (s 90) and for a contact person to fail to return the unused portion of a euthanatic drug to the pharmacist who dispensed it (s 89).

Using this new legislation is not for the faint-hearted.  Doctors who choose to do so will need to know what they are doing.

Are you interested in health law?  Sydney Law School offers a Master of Health Law that is open to lawyers, health professionals and other qualified applicants.  Click here and here for more information, or click here for information on the units of study on offer in 2018 and 2019.