Victoria’s VAD Deaths: What the 2025-26 Report Shows

Victoria’s Assisted Dying Deaths Reach 512: What the Numbers Show, What They Don’t, and What the Partner Case Teaches Us – Victoria’s VAD Deaths

Every year, Victoria’s Voluntary Assisted Dying Review Board publishes a report on how the state’s assisted dying law is operating. This year’s report, released quietly in late September, contains figures and one case that deserve attention from anyone who cares about how Australia treats its dying and vulnerable.

A recent news report on The Daily Declaration by Michael Cook, originally published by The Catholic Weekly, highlights two things: a steep rise in deaths since the law began in 2019, and a deeply troubling case in which a patient’s grieving partner died after taking the lethal drug that had been prescribed to the patient.

This post sets out what the report actually says, how to interpret the numbers fairly, what the partner case reveals about the safeguards, what recent law changes mean, and how Christians can respond with both conviction and compassion. It deals with death and suicide, so a note on support is included at the end.

What the Numbers Show

According to the Review Board’s 2025–26 annual report, as reported by Cook and other outlets:

• 512 deaths under Victoria’s voluntary assisted dying (VAD) law in 2025–26, compared with 389 the previous year, an increase of about 32 per cent.
• 129 deaths in 2019–20, the first full year of operation. The rise from 129 to 512 is almost four-fold, which is what Cook describes as an increase of about 300 per cent.
• 1.1 per cent of all deaths in Victoria in 2025–26, up from 0.3 per cent in 2019–20.
• Self-administration or practitioner administration. Of the 512 deaths, 372 (about 73 per cent) involved the person taking the substance themselves, and 140 (about 27 per cent) involved a doctor administering it.
• A cumulative total of 2,188 deaths from the start of the scheme to 30 June 2026, according to the Catholic Weekly report.
• 21 cases (about 2 per cent) were deemed “non-compliant,” which the Board attributes to administrative errors.
• Further growth expected. The Board says it expects more applications following recent legal changes.

For context, earlier annual reports showed VAD deaths representing about 0.65 per cent of all deaths in 2022–23 and about 0.85 per cent in 2024–25. Victoria’s rate was historically lower than in several other Australian states, and the Board previously described it as significantly lower than most. The 2025–26 jump to 1.1 per cent is therefore a notable change within Victoria.

How to Read the Numbers Fairly

The word “surge” is accurate in a literal sense, since the figures have risen sharply. But a careful reader should hold several points together.

Growth is expected in the early years of any new law. Awareness, practitioner participation and access all increase over time. Supporters argue that rising numbers show a service finding its place. Critics argue that they show a practice becoming normalised, and that the pace of the increase should concern us.

The proportion is still small. At 1.1 per cent, about one in ninety deaths in Victoria involved VAD. That’s still a small fraction, though the figure for Canada, where the share of deaths exceeds 5 per cent, shows how high it can go.

Changes to the law will likely push numbers up further. The Board itself expects this. Cook notes that a new law, effective 19 April, allows doctors, nurses and psychologists to raise VAD with patients, extends the eligibility period from six to twelve months of expected life, allows patients to choose between self-administration and practitioner administration, and requires doctors with a conscientious objection to provide patients with information about VAD. Whether those changes make the system safer and more accessible, as the Board says, or less safe, as critics say, is the heart of the current debate.

The Board’s framing differs from critics’. The Board describes the changes as improving the “safe and timely provision” of VAD. Critics point out that each of them loosens safeguards that were originally presented as essential. Both descriptions reflect real assessments, and they lead to different conclusions.

The Partner Case

The most sobering part of the report is a case involving a patient and their partner. According to Cook’s account:

• A patient was approved for VAD and received the lethal substance in February this year.
• The patient died a natural death in hospital in April, without taking the substance.
• Two days later, the patient’s grieving partner took the substance and died.

Cook notes that something similar has already happened twice in Queensland, where one of the two people was saved. A coroner who reviewed the first Queensland case warned that there would be “further calamity and heartbreak” unless the system for self-administration was reformed, a view published in the Medical Journal of Australia.

In Victoria, the Board stated that it found no evidence that any aspect of the VAD process or the dispensing of the substance contributed to the partner’s death, and that the incident “does not alter the Board’s assessment of the safety and integrity of the VAD framework.” That death was among the cases classified as non-compliant on administrative grounds.

It’s worth pausing on both responses. The Board is right that the death was not caused by a failure to follow the approval process. But whatever the technical classification, a lethal substance prescribed for one person ended up taking the life of another. That’s a safety problem that people on every side of the VAD debate should want addressed. Questions that arise include how the substance is stored, who has access to it, what supervision or support is provided to the family, and how reliably unused substances are returned after a patient’s death.

What the Law Changes Mean

The recent amendments to Victoria’s law are worth looking at carefully, because they illustrate the way these laws evolve.

• Practitioners may now raise VAD. Previously, health professionals were banned from initiating a conversation about VAD, a rule designed to prevent patients feeling pressured. Critics say removing it risks implying that VAD is a recommended option. Supporters say patients should be able to learn about all end-of-life options from their health team, and that the old ban left some people without information.
• The eligibility time frame extended. A prognosis of twelve months, rather than six, widens the group of eligible people.
• A choice of method. Allowing patients to choose between self-administration and practitioner administration is likely to increase use. Cook notes that in other Australian jurisdictions that offer both, between 70 and 90 per cent of people choose practitioner administration, and that in Canada nearly everyone does. In Victoria, where self-administration has been the default, it accounted for about 73 per cent of deaths in 2025–26.
• Information for conscientious objectors. As discussed in our recent look at NSW law, requiring objecting doctors to provide information about VAD is a significant change from the previous Victorian position and makes the question of conscience in healthcare more pressing.
• Telehealth. The Board strongly supports allowing VAD discussions by telehealth, which is currently restricted by federal law. It describes the ban as “unnecessary and inhumane,” while also observing that access doesn’t appear to be harder for regional Victorians than for those in Melbourne. Changing the law would require the federal Parliament.

What the Christian Tradition Says

The Christian tradition holds that human life is a gift from God, made in his image (Genesis 1:27) and known by him from the womb (Psalm 139:13–16). The sixth commandment forbids murder (Exodus 20:13). Throughout history, most Christian churches have opposed euthanasia and assisted suicide on this basis, while also teaching that there is no obligation to prolong dying through burdensome treatment.

Equally important is what the tradition requires of us in response:

• Presence. Jesus told his disciples that whatever they did for the least of these, they did for him (Matthew 25:35–40), including visiting the sick. Galatians 6:2 calls us to carry one another’s burdens.
• Comfort. Second Corinthians 1:3–4 speaks of the God of all comfort, who comforts us so that we can comfort others.
• Honour for the elderly and weak. Psalm 71:9 prays, “Do not cast me away when I am old.” Proverbs 31:8–9 calls us to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.
• Hope. The Christian faith offers a hope that death isn’t the end (1 Corinthians 15:55–57; Revelation 21:4), and that God is present with the dying (Psalm 23:4).
• Compassion without judgement. Many of those who consider VAD are suffering greatly, and many families carry deep grief. Christians are called to meet them with tenderness, not condemnation.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. The numbers matter, but context matters too.

The rise from 129 to 512 deaths is real and significant. It’s also true that the overall proportion remains small, that growth was expected, and that Victoria’s rate was, until recently, lower than elsewhere in Australia. The responsible conclusion isn’t that a catastrophe is under way, but that this is a trend which needs to be watched closely, with independent scrutiny.

2. The partner case is a safety issue for everyone.

Whatever one’s view on VAD itself, the death of a grieving person who took a substance prescribed for someone else should trouble us. It points to a gap in the system for self-administered substances that deserves a serious response, such as better storage requirements, clearer processes for return, family counselling and follow-up. The Board’s view that the framework is safe will carry more weight if it’s accompanied by concrete improvements in this area.

3. Safeguards shouldn’t be quietly loosened.

The 2025 amendments removed or relaxed several original safeguards. Whether those changes were justified is debatable, but they should be debated openly, with data, and not described as mere technical improvements. The rapid change from “no practitioner may raise it” to “practitioners may suggest it” is exactly the kind of shift that critics of VAD predicted would happen.

4. Administrative errors aren’t trivial.

The Board attributes the 21 non-compliant cases to administrative errors, and it’s possible they’re minor. But in a system that deals with life and death, errors matter. A 2 per cent non-compliance rate deserves explanation, and the Board should publish enough detail for the public to judge whether the errors are indeed minor.

5. The answer to suffering is care, not just choice.

If people are choosing VAD because they fear pain, burdening their families, or being alone, then the response must include better palliative care, disability support, mental health services and community. A genuine choice requires that real alternatives exist. Christians should be the first to support hospices and carers.

6. Be careful with rhetoric.

Terms like “surge” and “startling” are attention-grabbing, and they should be backed by careful context. Equally, terms such as “compassionate” and “safe” can obscure real concerns. We should aim to describe the situation in a way that both supporters and critics would recognise as fair.

7. Don’t forget the bereaved.

Behind every number is a family. Those who lose a loved one through VAD, those who lose someone through suicide, and those who are caught in the middle all need support. Churches can make a practical difference by offering time, meals, presence and prayer.

The Other Side of the Argument

In fairness, here’s how supporters of VAD would respond:

• Autonomy and compassion. Competent adults facing a terminal illness should be able to choose the timing and manner of their death. Supporters argue that refusing this prolongs suffering, and that the law is strictly regulated.
• The Board’s assessment. The independent Review Board has repeatedly found that the system is operating safely, and sees growth as a sign that the service is reaching people who need it. It argues that the numbers also don’t capture the people who obtain the substance and take comfort from knowing they have the option, even if they never use it.
• Per-capita comparison. Supporters note that Victoria’s rate is still below that of some other states and countries, and that rising numbers reflect an ageing population and growing awareness.
• Access. The Board and advocacy groups argue that the previous restrictions created barriers, particularly for regional Victorians and for people with fast-progressing illness, and that the amendments address this.
• Individual incidents don’t prove systemic failure. They would say that the partner case was tragic and unintended, that the Board found no failure of the process, and that tighter handling of substances can fix it.
• Some Christians hold that, in limited circumstances, VAD is consistent with compassion, though this is a minority view among churches.

Critics respond that the pattern of expansion, the weakening of original safeguards and cases like the partner’s all support their concerns. A thoughtful reader can recognise the strength of each position.

What Readers Can Do

• Read the primary sources. The Review Board’s annual reports are public, and are the best source for the figures.
• Contact your MP to ask about safeguards, palliative care funding and oversight of self-administration.
• Support palliative care. Give to or volunteer with hospice and palliative organisations, and advocate for better funding, especially in regional areas.
• Talk about end-of-life wishes with family, and consider advance care planning.
• Visit the lonely, sick and elderly. Isolation is one of the drivers of despair.
• Pray for those who are dying, for their families, and for wise decisions by legislators and health professionals.

If You Are Struggling

If you or someone you know is thinking about ending their life, or is struggling with grief after a loss, please reach out today. In Australia, Lifeline is available 24 hours a day on 13 11 14, and the Suicide Call Back Service is on 1300 659 467. In an emergency, call 000. Your GP, a pastor or a trusted friend can also help.

Questions to Reflect On

• What do I believe about suffering, dignity and the end of life, and where did those beliefs come from?
• Who among the elderly, sick or isolated people I know needs a visit this week?
• How would I want a loved one to be supported if they were dying?
• What would it look like for my church to be known for caring for the dying and their families?
• How can I speak about this issue in a way that respects both the vulnerable and those who disagree?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you are the giver of life and the comfort of the dying. We pray for everyone who is facing the end of life, and for those who care for them. Be near to families who are grieving, including those who have lost more than one person they love. Give wisdom to legislators, doctors and review boards who bear heavy responsibilities, and keep the vulnerable safe. Make your church a place of presence and practical love, where no one faces death alone. Amen.