In fact, this legal gag clause poses particular challenges to clinical practice. A number of authors have commented on the effects of the ban, including the impact on honest and open communication between naturopaths and their patients and the possible negative effects on the therapeutic relationship (66,70,71). Data from a qualitative survey also suggests that health professionals have identified the gag clause as potential challenges in practice and have made existing “end-of-life” care more difficult. Based on the results of one of the aforementioned mixed-methods surveys on AVC conducted during the “implementation phase”, McDougall, Hayes, Sellars and colleagues thematically analyzed the challenges that health practitioners faced in the context of (imminent) legislative change. The concern that health and health professionals `may avoid discussions on end-of-life care due to the increased complexity created by the availability of VAD, for example being misinterpreted as initiating a discussion on VAD `(55) was relevant to the implementation of the `gag clause` in practice. The authors note a comment from a “senior physician” who said he was “unsure” about the legalization of VAD: However, new empirical evidence supports the claim that the “safeguards” praised in the Victorian VAD model may be barriers to patient access to AVD in practice (given that patients are prima facie eligible). In particular, two surveys carried out during the implementation period provide insight into the attitudes of health professionals towards the legalisation and practice of VAD, taking into account the specific legislation adopted; An anonymous, multi-site, mixed-methods online survey was conducted in seven public health units in Victoria, including six municipal departments (five tertiary levels) and one regional unit (n = 5,159) (55), and a similar survey was conducted in one regional health unit (n = 1,624). Both surveys showed high support for legalizing CVA [73% (Sellars, Tacey, McDougall, et al., unpublished data); 87.6% (Fuscaldo, Gwini, Larsen et al., (56))]. Catholic health and care organizations have indicated that they will not offer or facilitate voluntary euthanasia.

However, some of the safeguards provided for in the legislation have a negative impact on the social acceptance of VAD. The ban on naturopaths charging for CVA could be seen as a stigma around this option, especially since there is no legal ban on any other medical option legally available in Victoria. Moreover, the requirement that conscientious objectors not have to refer incorporates the controversial nature of the CVA into the normative environment. These safeguards contribute to the stigmatization of VAD. If AVC is taboo in an environment, interested eligible patients may not feel safe discussing VAD. An environment that does not stigmatize the CVA is necessary to allow for equal access. There are relatively few situations in which euthanasia could even be considered, and I fear that a law would negatively affect more people than it could benefit. In my many years of experience in senior care facilities, relatives have repeatedly asked me to unusually hasten people`s deaths when the resident is still enjoying life in every way.

I have been repeatedly asked to stop palliative care, even acetaminophen, because of the excessive cost to the family. I also noticed once, when a family member particularly insisted that his mother die, that she had falsified and misdated a supplementary health policy in her mother`s name. Determining whether a person is able or willing to make a decision to end their life or make decisions about future treatments that they know very little about is complex and difficult. They were very cautious and very cautious in their approach, but many of the people who were strong supporters of euthanasia are not people with a life expectancy of less than 12 months. These are people who have been living with debilitating conditions for many, many years and who are not entitled to voluntary euthanasia under the law. “The conversation about me doing this because I want to make existential decisions about the end of my life is a much harder conversation than the community, but that`s what we need. [18] “If the way the law works makes it harder for these [terminally ill and critically ill people] to get help when they need it most, then maybe there are things that can and should be changed,” Denton said. Kathy Eagar, executive director of the Australian Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration and director of the Australian Institute of Health Services Research at the University of Wollongong, has analysed the statistics surrounding euthanasia internationally and says the law is limited. According to Eagar, the most important reason people choose euthanasia is that they don`t want to lose their independence and autonomy.

She believes euthanasia is a social problem, not a health issue, and says fewer than one in five choose euthanasia because of pain. [18] Track C includes “health services that have chosen not to offer voluntary euthanasia” [49], such as Catholic hospitals that play a critical role in health care in Victoria [50]. The reasons for a health service to choose route B or C may be the quality of care; Not all procedures can be performed in all health services if certain staff skills or facilities are required. However, the existence of the different pathways potentially creates a tiered system for CVA coverage that is incompatible with Ruger`s model of equal access [51]. The quality of patient care will vary depending on the organization treating them: some will receive care on Path A, while others will receive care on Path C.