Man tragically dies over fatal substance intended for someone else

The case of a Queensland man's death has raised serious concerns about the safeguards within the state's voluntary assisted dying (VAD) scheme.

The elderly man, referred to as ABC for legal reasons, tragically passed away using a fatal substance that was intended for another person.

This incident has sparked a debate about the balance between patient autonomy and the need for stringent regulatory oversight in the administration of VAD substances.



Coroner David O’Connell, in his findings, emphasised the gravity of the situation.

‘Persons should not be placed in a position where they can be led into unwise decisions,’ he said.

The inquest into ABC's death, which occurred within 107 days of the legalisation of VAD in Queensland, highlighted a 'tragedy' that has led to a call for a re-examination of the current laws.


shutterstock_2482094735.jpg
ABC tragically died after using a fatal substance intended for another person. Credit: Shutterstock


The VAD law in Queensland, which came into effect in January 2023, allows terminally ill patients to self-administer a VAD substance in a private location.

However, they must nominate a person legally required to return any unused or leftover portion within 14 days.

In ABC's case, the substance was not returned to a hospital due to his inability to leave his home, and no arrangement was made for a health professional to collect it.



ABC's daughter recounted the heart-wrenching moment she discovered her father's lifeless body.

‘I thought he was asleep in the chair. I put my arms around him. He was cold,’ she said.

ABC’s daughter also found an empty box in the kitchen and ‘knew immediately it was the VAD’.

The coroner found no breach of the law by health authorities, despite the substance being overdue for return.

However, he criticised the system's 'operational flaws' and the lack of 'well-considered law’.

‘It is clear that the system and its purportedly rigorous “check and balances”, had several operational flaws...it was, in my respectful opinion, not a well-considered law,’ O’Connell said.



In response to this case, Coroner O’Connell recommended that the Queensland government implement an earlier draft of VAD laws that required oversight by a medical professional at all times.

Queensland Health Minister Shannon Fentiman acknowledged the coroner's recommendations and had ‘already done some work in the respect’.

‘Following that case, we are working on a review of that legislation coming up to three years that will start next year, and that will obviously be one of the things that we look at,’ she said.
Key Takeaways
  • A Queensland coroner criticised the safeguards in the state's voluntary assisted dying scheme after finding an elderly man died using a fatal substance intended for someone else.
  • The coroner found faults in the current laws, noting they allowed terminally ill patients to possess dangerous drugs without medical training, regulatory oversight, or during times of personal turmoil.
  • The incident occurred within 107 days of the legalisation of voluntary assisted dying in Queensland and highlighted flaws in the system's checks and balances.
  • The Queensland Health Minister stated that the government would consider the coroner’s recommendations and reiterated that a review of the legislation is slated for the following year.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to ABC's family, friends, and relatives. May he rest in peace.

Have you or someone you know navigated the VAD process? What measures do you believe are necessary to protect individuals while preserving their autonomy? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
 

Seniors Discount Club

Sponsored content

Info
Loading data . . .
I am so sorry to hear about ABC's case. This is just my personal opinion, but I don't believe in VAD. I have numerous serious health concerns but would never consider VAD, I know a lot of people would. There seems to be needed more checks and balances in place and definite medical advice around doing this. I know doctors are unsure about this new law especially after all the publicity regarding Philip Nitschke and I dont' blame them. May ABC rest in peace.
Why the laughing emoji?Nothing funny here
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeautifulMousey
Am I the only one who is baffled by this story?
Who was the VAD substance intended for? Was it ABC themselves?
If so, what does the headline "intended for someone else" mean?
If not, then who was it intended for? (No need for names, just a simple explanation).
If it was intended for use by ABC, then the law was broken by not returning the unused portion.
Could someone please explain what actually took place as the story does not explain this sufficiently.
Yes, there is some missing information relating to how it got to be in ABC's home ?
 
Who in hell was responsible for the allocation of the drug to ABC. Someone is totally responsible for this MAJOR mishap. I just hope that ABC's family have engaged the services of an extremely well conversed "NEGLEGENT Medical solicitor to act on their behalf.
Someone has to pay for the neglegence provided causing the death of a totally innocent person in care.

I know what I'd be doing if poor ABC was my dad. Show NO MERCY. Go for the JUGLER.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeautifulMousey

Join the conversation

News, deals, games, and bargains for Aussies over 60. From everyday expenses like groceries and eating out, to electronics, fashion and travel, the club is all about helping you make your money go further.
  • We believe that retirement should be a time to relax and enjoy life, not worry about money. That's why we're here to help our members make the most of their retirement years. If you're over 60 and looking for ways to save money, connect with others, and have a laugh, we’d love to have you aboard.
  • Advertise with us

User Menu

Enjoyed Reading our Story?

  • Share this forum to your loved ones.
Change Weather Postcode×
Change Petrol Postcode×