I have come across an excellent academic paper by Hannah Graham and Jeremy Prichard. It is a comprehensive consideration of the flaws in the argument of those pushing for the legalisation of euthanasia in Tasmania. I encourage you to read it. The links are below.
The critique that follows highlights two substantial issues with Giddings and McKim’s (2013) paper and proposed model. A number of the claims that they make inappropriately imply concrete facts (i.e. sentiments along the lines of “the evidence has spoken” and “our research shows…”) without acknowledging the depth of international contention on certain topics.
Secondly, significant amounts of empirical evidence and alternative academic and professional perspectives have been understated or omitted in their paper. That evidence, along with the implications, paradoxes and questions that emerge for the Tasmanian context, is considered in this response. We look at what is being proposed and what is missing. In particular, we analyse what is missing from Giddings and McKim’s (2013) portrayal of the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and assisted dying in jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon.