Telehealth bans in assisted dying expose systemic inequities, professional gatekeeping, and cultural biases in end‑of‑life care
Original framing: “The ban on telehealth in voluntary assisted dying doesn’t stack up. Here’s why it should be scrapped” — The Conversation - Global
Empirical studies show telehealth can reliably assess capacity and consent when combined with standardized protocols and independent verification, reducing travel burden without compromising safety. Systematic reviews also highlight the risk of bias when access is limited to in‑person assessments, especially for remote patients.
The telehealth ban on voluntary assisted dying is less a matter of clinical safety than a reinforcement of entrenched power structures that marginalize rural, Indigenous, and low‑income patients.
By integrating hybrid assessment protocols, co‑designing policies with culturally diverse advisory councils, and investing in equitable digital infrastructure, the system can honor both individual autonomy and communal values. Historical patterns of medical gatekeeping warn against isolated reforms; instead, a transparent, data‑driven ethics framework ensures accountability. Cross‑cultural lessons from the Netherlands, Belgium, and Indigenous traditions demonstrate that technology can be adapted to respect varied conceptions of death, turning the current paradox into an opportunity for inclusive, humane end‑of‑life care.