The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: part 1 (New South Wales)

This is the first 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 New South Wales. 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 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 New South Wales.     

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.     

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.     

Medical and legal aspects of genital mutilation and circumcision part I: female genital mutilation (FGM)

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is considered to be against the law and against morality not only in Western countries, although a woman of age and able to consent may sometimes think differently. The procedure may have serious physical and emotional consequences for the girl or woman. Nevertheless there are attempts to justify the procedure with medical and hygienic pseudoarguments, ideology, freedom of religion, cultural identity and social adequacy. Outside the Western world, some people claim that religion and culture alone justify the practice. In Germany, parents can lose the right to determine the residence of their daughter, if she is faced with the risk of genital mutilation in order to prevent that the child or girl is taken to her home country. Genital mutilation as a gender-specific threat is recognized as a reason to grant asylum or prevent deportation. Proposals to make genital mutilation a separate punishable offence are presently discussed by the legislator.