Journal of law and medicine
-
The role of law in managing public health challenges such as influenza pandemics poses special challenges. This article reviews Australian plans in the context of the H1N1 09 experience to assess whether risk management was facilitated or inhibited by the "number" of levels or phases of management, the degree of prescriptive detail for particular phases, the number of plans, the clarity of the relationship between them, and the role of the media. ⋯ It is suggested that this was because the plans proved to be frameworks for coordination rather than prescriptive straitjackets, to be only one component of the regulatory response, and to offer the varied tool box of possible responses, as called for by the theory of responsive regulation. Consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, it is argued that the plans did not inhibit localised responses such as selective school closures or rapid responses to selected populations such as cruise ship passengers.
-
The teaching of medical ethics is not yet characterised by recognised, standard requirements for formal qualifications, training and experience; this is not surprising as the field is still relatively young and maturing. Under the broad issue of the requirements for teaching medical ethics are numerous more specific questions, one of which concerns whether medical ethics can be taught in isolation from considerations of the law, and vice versa. Ethics and law are cognate, though distinguishable, disciplines. ⋯ Four examples of topics from medical ethics teaching are described to support this claim. Australasian medical ethics teachers have paid less attention to the role of law in their curricula than their United Kingdom counterparts. Questions like the one addressed here will help inform future deliberations concerning minimal requirements for teaching medical ethics.
-
This column reports on a recent decision, the first in England in which a court was asked to authorise the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a "minimally conscious state". Since the seminal decision in 1993 in Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, in which the House of Lords authorised withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient in a persistent vegetative state, the relatively new diagnosis of a "minimally conscious state" has been recognised. ⋯ A significant pitfall of the English position, as it is currently developing, is the premium it places on accurate diagnosis, whether of vegetative state or minimally conscious state. These issues will have to be faced sooner or later by Australasian courts.