A/Prof. David Wood1
1University Of Melbourne, , Australia
Biography:
David Wood is a Principal Research Fellow at the Melbourne Law School with the title of Associate Professor. He has written extensively in criminal law and justice, judicial ethics, jurisprudence and legal theory.
Abstract:
There are terminal illness assisted dying eligibility regimes ("dying" regimes), requiring satisfaction of a capacity criterion and a terminal illness criterion, but not requiring satisfaction of a suffering eligibility criterion (United States jurisdictions). There are suffering legislative eligibility regimes ("suffering" regimes) requiring satisfaction of a capacity criterion and a suffering criterion, but not requiring satisfaction of a terminal illness eligibility criterion (Benelux jurisdictions). And there are combined terminal illness and suffering legislative assisted dying eligibility regimes ("combined" regimes), requiring satisfaction of a capacity criterion, and of both a terminal illness criterion and a suffering criterion (Australian jurisdictions, Canada, New Zealand). However, there are no alternative terminal illness or suffering assisted dying legislative eligibility regimes ("alternative" regimes) to complete the matrix, requiring satisfaction of either a terminal illness criterion or a suffering criterion, but not both.
It is not just that no alternative clause has been enacted, no such regime established – no model such clause (insofar as the author is aware) has been drafted, or even proposed. Rather than ask "Why not?", a question pursued elsewhere, the paper proposes a model alternative terminal illness or suffering eligibility clause, and provides explanatory notes, and further examination and review.