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 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 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 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.     

Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions

In a four-factor design, the effects on judicial decisions of sample (102 students versus 100 nonstudents), sex of subject, pretrial publicity (damaging and relevant versus irrelevant), and judge's instructions (warning to disregard pretrial publicity versus a neutral statement) were examined. Results indicated that sample and judge's instructions had no effects on verdicts, recommendations for sentencing, or ratings of the strength of the prosecution and defenses' cases. Pretrial publicity, however, exerted a strong influence on verdicts and ratings of the prosecution's case, particularly among females. It is suggested that pretrial publicity may serve to affect evaluations of the evidence presented at the trial.     

司法判决理由的法律解释的不足与完善建议

司法判决理由是司法权合理化最重要的指标,也是法官思维水平的最典型表现。作为证明司法结果正当性的关键因素,法官的法律解释构成了司法判决理由不可或缺的组成部分,理应在司法判决中得以充分展示。为了改变我国判决书中法律解释状况薄弱、判决理由不充分的局面,科学合理地写明法官对案件事实和适用法律的解释状况就势在必行。