This appeared a few days ago:
More than 130 patients in NSW died through voluntary assisted dying in program’s first three months
Between the state legalising VAD in November 2023 and February 2024, 517 patients made requests to access it, official report shows
Fri 28 Jun 2024 16.38 AEST Last modified on Fri 28 Jun 2024 16.40 AEST
More than 130 patients have died through New South Wales’s voluntary assisted dying program in the first three months since it was legalised.
NSW became the last state in Australia to legalise voluntary assisted dying when new legislation came into effect in November.
Between November 2023 and February 2024, 517 patients have made requests to access voluntary assisted dying and, of those, 131 completed the process.
An interim report from the NSW Voluntary Assisted Dying Board showed that in the three-month reporting period, 408 patients completed a first assessment.
Of those people, 321 completed the next step, a consulting assessment, and of those, 248 made a substance authorisation application.
Of those who died following the process, 30% self-administered the voluntary assisted dying substance.
The report also showed that of those who completed the first assessment, a majority were over the age of 60.
It said 2.5% came from Indigenous communities, while 65% lived in regional NSW.
Prof Jenni Millbank, the NSW Voluntary Assisted Dying Board chair, wrote in the report that many patients apply to receive substance authority from the board, but never use it.
“We know from the experience in other states as well as our first few months of operations that some people who receive a substance authority from the board may ultimately choose not to take the substance,” she wrote.
“Knowing the substance is available to them gives these people the power of choice, and may provide a degree of relief and comfort in their final days and weeks.”
The report showed that of the 246 patients who made successful applications for substance authorisation, 115 did not use it, while 29 died from other causes during the reporting period.
Millbank said the board meets twice weekly in person to assess applications and they are sometimes forced to meet more often in urgent cases.
“The board undertakes a high volume of work associated with its decision-making functions,” she wrote.
“We are also often required to make decisions at short notice or in urgent circumstances outside of our regular meeting schedule. This is to ensure that eligible people who are at end of life or at risk of losing decision making capacity who have applied for voluntary assisted dying are supported to access it.”
The NSW government passed voluntary assisted dying legislation in May 2022 after a marathon debate and six months after the bill passed the lower house.
The bill was spearheaded by the independent MP Alex Greenwich and limits access to voluntary assisted dying to people with terminal illnesses who will die within six months or 12 months in the case of a person with a neurodegenerative condition experiencing unbearable suffering.
The person must be found to have capacity to make the decision to go ahead voluntarily without duress and the application would be assessed by two medical practitioners.
Patients can choose whether they want to take the medication themselves orally or for it to be injected by a doctor.
Here is the link:
Clearly this is an important reform for those who need to take advantage of the freedom to decide your fate for yourself when faced with such difficult circumstances.
For myself I am certainly happy the freedom now exists in NSW, but I hope I do not ever need to take advantage of it!
Well done to the NSW Government for giving us all the right to make up our own minds on this crucial and existential matter…
David.
But in a major concession, Mr O’Brien said on Sunday the Coalition would not go to the election announcing the estimated generation capacity of its nuclear power plan, leaving this decision to an independent body until after the election.
“One of the lessons we learned from overseas, in order to get prices down, you need multi-unit sites,” Mr O’Brien told the ABC’s Insiders program.
“Let’s say the small modular reactors … When you talk about a nuclear plant, these are modularised compartments. You can add another 300, add another 300.
“You’re talking about multi-unit plants.”
An independent nuclear energy coordinating authority would make recommendations on the number and type of reactors per site, Mr O’Brien said, which would then determine the final generation capacity.
“The independent body would look at each plant, and come up with a recommendation as to what sort of technology should be used,” he said.
“From there, it would be exactly what capacity based on that technology.
“Only from there can you come down to a specific number of gigawatts”.
Last week the Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
The Coalition has proposed to locate the reactors in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
Estimates from the Smart Energy Council and the Grattan Institute had placed the combined output of seven reactors at up to 11GW, or less than 4 per cent of the total generation capacity in the national energy market (NEM) by 2050.
While hosting more than one reactor at each site would increase the share of generation from nuclear power, it would significantly drive up the cost incurred by taxpayers and place further pressure on the already tight deadline to have the reactors online by mid-century.
With energy policy set to be a key battleground in the next election, Mr O’Brien said the Coalition would not go to the poll detailing a specific amount of nuclear power it expected, but would rather indicate the share of the total energy generation in the NEM “in due course”.
“Until we release renewables policy and gas policy, I won’t be talking about the proportion of the mix,” he said.
“We’ll be clear as to what we believe the potential capacity could be through to 2050.”
While committing that renewable generation would remain under the Coalition’s proposal, Mr O’Brien also declined to reveal what proportion it would contribute.
Plibersek takes aim at lack of cost, detail
Also speaking on Sunday, Labor frontbencher Tanya Plibersek added her voice to the tirade of criticism against the Opposition’s nuclear energy push, criticising the Coalition for its refusal to detail the estimated cost to add nuclear generation to the national electricity market in the biggest overhaul of energy policy in decades.
“He’s saying to Australians: ‘I don’t trust you. I don’t trust you with the costing we’ve done,’ if he’s got costings,” Ms Plibersek told Sky News.
“On every analysis internationally, renewables are cheaper, nuclear is the most extensive.
“What is it going to do to pay for his power bills if the government is recouping the very expensive cost of building and running those nuclear reactors?”
Last the week Coalition unveiled plans to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050 with the first reactor slated to be operational in just over a decade in a move designed to deliver cheaper, zero-emissions and reliable power supply.
The large-scale and small modular generators would be Commonwealth-owned, similar to arrangements governing the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme, requiring a multibillion-dollar funding commitment from taxpayers.
Asked why Australia had eschewed nuclear power when many other advanced economies had adopted the technology, Ms Plibersek pointed to Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable power generation.
“We’ve got the room, we’ve got the resources, we’ve got the critical minerals we need, battery manufacturing, we’re investing in green hydrogen,” Ms Plibersek said.
“We can be a renewable energy superpower and instead Peter Dutton wants to slam the brakes on, instead of leading the world with renewable energy investment.
“He wants to fast track nuclear, and put us on the slow lane when it comes to renewables. It’s just mad.”
Here is the link:
https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/completely-irrational-plibersek-takes-aim-at-coalition-over-uncosted-nuclear-push/news-story/c197973cd95492f10acf285ee81fd126
I really am just amazed how irrational this whole debate is! I think it reveals a level of national scientific literacy which is frankly terrifying! How can it be news you can have 2 (or more) reactors on the same site!
The facts are that nuclear reactors are used all over the world for power generation for decades and the technology is proven to be very safe, a country as large as ours can find a spot to store nuclear waste safely and we have excellent access to all the fuel we need from a multitude of mines. We also are developing our own nuclear technology expertise via AUKUS. Whether we go down the nuclear power-generation path is a purely economics driven decision IMVHO.
Right now solar, hydro and wind energy are cheaper as emission free sources of power and so the questions are around continuity and reliability of supply from what we presently use and may have and whether nuclear makes economic sense to develop.
Despite the apparent public hysteria the technologies are safe, proven but pretty expensive and we have cheaper options for the present. Whether this changes at some point I have no idea!
Anyway if we are going down the nuclear submarine route some stationary reactors are hardly a stretch. The main limitation will be water for cooling, of which a lot is needed!
Can we have a properly informed debate on all this please!
David.