The AMA has ramped up pressure on the federal government to scrap laws preventing doctors from discussing voluntary assisted dying over telehealth.
The peak body says the current regulations leave rural and seriously ill patients without equitable access to legal care.
In its latest position statement, the AMA has urged federal attorney-general Michelle Rowland to amend the Criminal Code to carve out an exception for lawful VAD-related discussions using telehealth.
It follows Labor members passing a motion last week at the 50th ALP national conference to “remove barriers” for Australians seeking VAD advice via telehealth. The move came despite prime minister Anthony Albanese personally opposing the motion.
AMA President Dr Danielle McMullen said treating VAD consultations as legally equivalent to incitement to suicide imposes hardship on patients, especially outside cities.
“Patients in regional, rural and remote Australia – and those too unwell to travel – are being denied equitable access to a legally available choice, because of outdated laws that were never designed with voluntary assisted dying in mind,” Dr McMullen said.
“The AMA’s position is that telehealth should operate for VAD as a valuable complement to in-person care, and not a replacement for clinically necessary physical attendances.”
This means allowing telehealth when an in-person visit isn’t feasible, necessary or appropriate, enabling doctors to treat patients in isolated communities and easing the burden of long-distance travel.
Under the Criminal Code Act, it is illegal to discuss suicide-related matters over telehealth or video calls, including VAD consultations, with doctors facing up to $300,000 in fines.
The AMA welcomed WA MP Kate Chaney’s reintroduction of her Voluntary Assisted Dying Telehealth bill on May 25, 2026, with over 13,000 Australians signing her petition.
RACGP rural chair Associate Professor Michael Clements, a Queensland GP with experience in VAD care, said he understood concerns about telehealth provisions but didn’t see commercial priorities devaluing the personal quality of care.
“The average VAD discussion spans multiple visits and involves multiple points of contact. There might be 10 to 20 interactions between a patient and a care team,” Professor Clements said.
Outside Queensland and the ACT, VAD eligibility is generally limited to residents with a prognosis of six months to live, or twelve months for those with a neurodegenerative condition.
“For every 10 people who might want to have a conversation with their doctor about VAD and the process, only one or two will actually go through the process of filling in the paperwork and accessing the services,” he said.
Having access to telehealth consultations would ensure patients in rural areas were not missing out and could receive initial information rather than a final recommendation or assessment, Professor Clements told TMR.
“I fully support the idea that face-to-face consultations are absolutely required in the VAD process, and there’s state-level legislation that lays out certain provisions of care that enable doctors to appropriately assess coercion, the risk of coercion, and to fully assess the patient,” he said.
“What we’re not asking for at all is to diminish our duty of care and our responsibility to follow the necessary processes.”
In an ABC Insiders television interview last weekend, Mr Albanese said while he supported voluntary euthanasia, he was concerned telehealth conversations would “undermine” VAD.
“I think it is important that people have the right to die in dignity,” he said.
“If someone has a heart attack or an acute health condition, they need a doctor, they can’t do that over telehealth… Someone ending their life is just as important, and I think that it should be face-to-face recognition and engagement.”
“My concern is […] the potential for misuse, but also the potential that [VAD] has to undermine the system in itself.”
Mr Albanese said the motion was a conscience vote for this reason, citing “these are very personal decisions”, but that ultimately it was a matter for cabinet.
“What the conference does is put direction of what they want, and it’s clear that it is a matter of conscience,” he said.
Ms Rowland also favoured a conscience vote on VAD but disagreed with a universal change to laws around telehealth.
“These provisions are there for a good reason: they were enacted to deter ill- intentioned individuals from encouraging vulnerable people to self-harm or commit suicide,” Ms Rowland said.
While she acknowledged the well-intentioned advocacy in the area, particularly for remote and regional patients, she said telehealth appointments were inadequate for VAD consultations.
“My view is that this is fundamentally a health policy issue, and any movement in this area needs to be supported by strong evidence and rigorous safeguards to prevent abuse,” Ms Rowland said.
In a global analysis published in the Australian Health Review, which examined 26 articles for the review, researchers found Australia was the only country where using telehealth for VAD was prohibited by criminal legislation.
Moreover, its review found that telemedicine enabled shorter but more frequent interactions, which reduced pressure on patients and practitioners to discuss multiple emotional and logistical aspects in a single interaction and reduced travel costs, time and discomfort.
Last week, the Northern Territory introduced the Rights of the Terminally Ill 2026 bill – the last jurisdiction in Australia moving to legalise VAD.
It is set to become law with majority support in August and will commence no later than 18 months after assent.
The post AMA backs telehealth access for VAD appeared first on Medical Republic.
Add Comment