IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i1pfwae045..html

How best to regulate voluntary assisted dying: a qualitative study of perceptions of Australian doctors and regulators

Author

Listed:
  • Ben P White
  • Casey M Haining
  • Lindy Willmott

Abstract

It is widely accepted that voluntary assisted dying (VAD) should be regulated but little is known about the most effective way to regulate doctors in this setting. This article reports on empirical research conducted in two Australian states where VAD is lawful (Victoria and Western Australia). Interviews were conducted with 92 participants: one group comprised doctors providing VAD and the other group was regulators in this field. Participants were asked about how best to regulate doctors providing this service. Strikingly, both regulator and doctor participant groups were consistent with each other in their views on what constituted effective regulation. The nature of VAD was perceived by participants to require special regulation, although some felt this was overdone in these states. Reported features of effective regulation included regulators taking an educative approach, regulation being perceived as acceptable by doctors, and it being responsive and nimble to provide the guidance that doctors need. Participants also considered a range of regulatory tools were required to regulate VAD effectively, and some identified a need for these tools to be employed together in a holistic way. This article concludes with a set of principles for effective regulation of VAD, discerned from the views of participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben P White & Casey M Haining & Lindy Willmott, 2025. "How best to regulate voluntary assisted dying: a qualitative study of perceptions of Australian doctors and regulators," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 1-045..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:fwae045.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae045
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:1:p:fwae045.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.