The "policy" in this case explicitly says that I won't be covered whenever, in the estimation of the "insurance company," there's no reasonable chance that any further treatment will produce any beneficial result.
Do I strongly suspect that the "insurance company" opinion might be more motivated by financial concerns than any sincere desire to be helpful? You bet. But that's the deal the citizens of Australia have given themselves. If they don't like it, they should change it.
So, he deserves to be murdered, because he lives in a place where it can happen. He didn’t single-handedly prevent this possibility, so he should live with the consequences (or die with them.) We should have the problem because we didn’t change it, but we shouldn’t try to change it, because we should have to have the situation we allowed. Strange circular reasoning you have there.