In the debate on euthanasia or assisted dying, many different arguments have been advanced either for or against legal reform in the academic literature, and much contemporary academic research seeks to engage with these arguments. However, very little research has been undertaken to track the arguments that are being advanced by politicians when Bills proposing reform are debated in Parliament. Politicians will ultimately decide whether legislative reform will proceed and, if so, in what form. It is therefore essential to know what arguments the politicians are advancing in support of or against legal reform so that these arguments can be assessed and scrutinised. This article seeks to fill this gap by collecting, synthesising and mapping the pro- and anti-euthanasia and assisted dying arguments advanced by Australian politicians, starting from the time the first ever euthanasia Bill was introduced.

This article compares the Australian and Chinese adult guardianship systems, and considers whether there is potential for drawing on some (or many) aspects of the Australian model for the Chinese legal framework. Australia has a well-developed guardianship framework that provides mechanisms for making healthcare decisions when an adult is no longer able to do so. This framework has evolved over many years and, in some cases, individuals can decide about medical treatment in advance of the situation arising, or who should be the decision-maker if he or she later loses capacity. The current Chinese legal framework, on the other hand, is a fragmented one and comprises laws that were not designed to deal with how healthcare decisions can be made for a person without capacity. This article outlines the legal framework in both jurisdictions and considers whether, having regard to the fact that these two countries have different values and cultures, there are features of the Australian guardianship system that could inform the development of Chinese law.