Does a doctor have a duty to provide information and advice about complementary and alternative medicine?

It is argued that a doctor has a duty to provide information about reasonably available complementary and alternative medicine treatments where that information would be material to the particular patient or the hypothetical prudent patient. Given the vast array of such treatments available, doctors will want to rely on evidence-based medicine problem-solving skills to ascertain those treatments that are safe and efficacious. While the risk of litigation for failure to provide such information is probably low at this time, given the high rate of patient self-prescribing, it is necessary for a doctor to open a dialogue with a patient about complementary and alternative medicine to address safety concerns. In addition, it is important to facilitate access to the best of conventional and complementary treatments to ensure better health outcomes for the patient.     

Medical Samaritans: is there a duty to treat?

This article argues that doctors and other health care professionals should be obliged to provide emergency treatment to those in immediate and nearby need regardless of the absence of any prior professional relationship between the parties. It concludes that the common law should accordingly recognize a specific duty of 'medical rescue'. It examines some of the conventional objections to affirmative duties, finding them unconvincing in this particular context. It draws on two recent appellate decisions, one Australian and the other English, for support, as well as on more general arguments concerning moral sentiment, professional ethics, public expectation, and respect for human rights.     

End of life decisions and pregnant women: do pregnant women have the right to refuse life preserving medical treatment? A comparative study

In this article the practice of end of life decisions is applied to pregnant women. This is not an easy task as shown by the extensive case law and literature on the subject. The main conclusion of the article is that the pregnant woman's wishes should always be respected whatever the consequences for the foetus may be. Another position would unjustly sacrifice the woman's fundamental rights to bodily integrity and self-determination for the benefit of a non-person. The result is repeated in the situation where the woman is found to be incompetent or brain dead.     

Law, pregnancy and sport: what are the repercussions when a pregnant lady plays?

This article reflects on the issue of pregnancy and sport that was brought to the fore in Gardner v National Netball League (2001) 182 ALR 408; [2001] FMCA 50 and Gardner v All Australia Netball Association Ltd (2003) 174 FLR 452. It suggests that these cases did not provide a definitive discussion of the tortious liability implications that initially led Netball Australia to introduce a ban on pregnant players. In an attempt to fill some of these gaps, other case law that deals with liability of sporting organisations and prenatal injury is discussed. The article primarily focuses on whether the unborn child when born alive will have an action against her or his mother as a result of injury occasioned while the mother was playing sport when pregnant. This examination is undertaken in light of recent Australian tort reform as well as changes in policy direction. The article summarises the legal position of the parties involved in sport--sporting organisations, medical practitioners, other participants and the pregnant mother--and argues that, with reference to the guidelines and case law, in only a very small number of cases would liability be found against the sporting organisation or pregnant mother as a result of injuries incurred prenatally.     

Is it possible to have cheaper drugs and preserve the incentive to innovate? The benefits of privatizing the drug approval process

In this paper, we argue that lower prices for pharmaceuticals can be achieved by fostering a new type of competition in the pharmaceutical industry. Lower drug development costs, and hence prices, can be brought about by abolishing national drug administrations and replacing them with private certification boards that compete on the basis of safety, efficiency and cost of their drug approval process. A major benefit of this type of privatization is that it would not necessitate limits on data exclusivity in order to achieve lower prices. Drug approval privatization could achieve the same positive results as generic competition, in terms of lower costs and prices, without the negative effects of intellectual property rights violation and the consequent discouragement of innovative activities.

Defining the limits: the clash between a doctor’s duty to preserve life and enforcement of a patient’s religious belief

This article examines the question whether, under Nigerian law, a doctor has a duty to save the life of a patient whose refusal of medical treatment will inevitably lead to death. An affirmative answer is suggested after an examination of relevant Nigerian laws on the subject matter. Mindful of developments in this area of law in some other jurisdictions, this article concludes that there is scope for the amendment of relevant Nigerian laws to institutionalise a patient’s unqualified prerogative to give informed consent. It however cautions that, in the light of complex social challenges, Nigeria does not appear ready for such a change.