Journal of law and medicine
-
This article critically analyses the recent High Court decision in Tabet v Gett (2010) 84 ALJR 292; [2010] HCA 12 which considered whether a person should be able to obtain compensation on the basis of a loss of a chance of a better medical outcome. The appellant argued that the High Court should regard a plaintiff as entitled to compensation when a breach by a defendant of their duty of care causes the plaintiff to lose a possibility, but not a probability, of a better medical outcome. The High Court held that it was not possible for a person in the position of the appellant to obtain compensation for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome.
-
End-of-life decision-making continues to challenge health care providers, patients, families, regulators and judges. The Queensland State Coroner's findings in the 2009 inquest into the death of June Woo resulted in a submission from concerned clinicians to the Queensland Law Reform Commission's review of the State's guardianship regime, claiming that the judgment held problematic implications for future practice. This column summarises the State Coroner's findings and recommendations, and critically analyses the clinical response, focusing on consent requirements that, while peculiar to Queensland, illustrate continuing tensions surrounding decision-making conflicts at the end of life.