The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: part 2 (Queensland)

This is the second article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in Queensland, including the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals' legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training medical professionals receive on issues such as advance health directives and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals' knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in Queensland.     

The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: Part 3 (Victoria)

This is the final article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in Victoria. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals' legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training that medical professionals receive on issues such as refusal of treatment certificates and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals' knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in Victoria. The article also draws together themes from the series as a whole, including conclusions about the need for more and better medical education and about law reform generally.     

The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.     

The legal basis for ethical withholding and withdrawing of life-sustaining medical treatment in children

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment are common in paediatric practice, especially in intensive care units. However, not all clinicians apparently adhere to principles in ethical guidelines or to the principles which are to be found in judgments from common law cases arising when doctors and parents dispute treatment. This article examines selected ethical guidelines and compares them to judgments in leading cases. The rationale to forgo treatment is usually the child's "best interests" in both clinical practice guidelines and legal cases but in the former "best interests" may remain ill defined. Although "best interests" must essentially pertain to the individual child, the interests of others are not irrelevant. In legal cases "best interests" of the child are defined in terms such as "burden versus benefit", "futility", "indignity", "intolerability", "prolonging death rather than saving life" and "quality of life". These or like terms should form the basis of ethical decisions in discussions with parents when contemplating withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.     

Work release and periodic detention in New South Wales: The custodial model and role experimentation

The custodial model is singled out from among the possible alternative models for work-release programs. Although custody-oriented staff typically are conservative and oppose change, work release programs press them into unfamiliar relationships with residents and with members of the free community. Without formal guidance, personnel engage in role experimentation that holds potential as a prelude to significant penal reform. Implications are suggested through analysis of periodic detention and work release as different schemes followed in New South Wales.     

The capacities of minors to exercise voluntariness in medical treatment decisions

The legal standard for informed consent to medical treatment requires that the consenter be informed, competent, and acting voluntarily. The voluntary requirement of a valid consent was investigated by comparing forty 9- and 10-year-old children and forty 14- and 15-year-old adolescents (both generally presumed to be incapable of voluntary consent) with 47 young adults ranging in age from 21 to 25 (legally presumed to be deciding voluntarily) on responses to three hypothetical medical decision vignettes. The degree of parental influence was varied within each vignette to study the salience of parental influence in medical decision making. In two of three medical decision vignettes, most participants were deferent to parental wishes and few differences were found between children, adolescents, and young adults in their responses to parental influence. Differences between age groups were found in response to a kidney donation vignette. Children were significantly more likely to defer to parents than either adolescents or young adults. Adolescents were more likely to defer to parents than young adults, although this finding only approximated statistical significance. Implications of these findings for legal authorities, social policy makers, and families are discussed.     

The prominence of fraud in New South Wales metropolitan media reporting

This study analyses the coverage of six major crime types in two of Australia’s largest newspapers. The study aims to test the prevailing viewpoint that fraud and financial crimes are proportionally underreported in the media. The study considers the cost of fraud and financial crime to society, the choices the media makes when reporting on fraud and financial crime, and the impact of media reporting on public policy and law enforcement. The study challenges prevailing views on the extent of media coverage of fraud, finding that there is significant coverage of fraud in the sampled Australian newspapers.     

Reviewing regulation of assisted reproductive technology in New South Wales: the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW)

In November 2007, the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW) was passed to deal with a number of issues under the spectrum of reproductive technologies. The legislation was the outcome of a review conducted by the New South Wales Health Department and adopts a different approach to other Australian statutory regulation. This article considers the approach of the new legislation and whether there are some issues that require further consideration under the new regulatory regime. In particular, discussion is focused on the failure of the new legislation to address eligibility for reproductive treatments as well as the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for the creation of tissue-matched children.