Journal of law and medicine
-
Front-line health care personnel, including anaesthetists, otolaryngologists, and other health professionals dealing with acute cases of coronavirus, face a high risk of infection and thus mortality. The scientific evidence establishes that to protect them, hospital protocols should require that wearing of the highest levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) be available for doctors and nurses performing aerosol-generating procedures, such as intubation, sputum induction, open suctioning of airways, bronchoscopy, etc. of COVID-19 patients. Although several international bodies have issued recommendations for a very high-level PPE to be used when these procedures are undertaken, the current PPE guidelines in Australia have tended to be more relaxed, and hospital authorities relying on them might not comply with legal obligations to their employee health care workers. Failure to provide high-level PPE in many hospitals is of concern for a large number of health care workers; this article examines the scientific literature on the topic and provides a legal perspective on hospital authorities' possible liability in negligence.
-
This column discusses the potential for conflict between the Federal laws forbidding the use of telecommunications to spread "suicide-related materials" and the laws in Victoria and Western Australia which have legalised forms of voluntary assisted dying. The column argues that the effect of the State laws is to differentiate the legal forms of voluntary assisted dying from suicide and assisted suicide, with the effect that Federal prohibitions do not apply to telecommunications between health practitioners and their patients regarding voluntary assisted dying.
-
The COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment highly conducive to substandard and fraudulent research. The incentives and temptations for the unethical are substantial. The articles published during 2020 in The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine that were based on spurious datasets, allegedly hosted by a cloud-based health care analytics platform, are deeply confronting for research integrity. ⋯ A period of crisis such as that in existence during the COVID-19 pandemic calls for high-quality research that is robustly evaluated. It is not a time for panic to propel premature publication or for relaxation in scholarly standards. Any other approach will replicate errors of the past and result in illusory research breakthroughs to global detriment.
-
The purpose of this article is to report some Victorian doctors' general perspectives and knowledge of the new Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic) (VAD Act). Under the VAD Act, doctors are constructed as the only legal providers of VAD in Victoria. Doctors who are unwilling to participate in VAD therefore constitute a barrier to patient access. ⋯ It also explores participants' understanding of the specific role required of doctors under the law. It finds that participants equate their support for the Act with biomedical ethical principles and generally hold a level of knowledge of the law which is not comprehensive but improves with greater exposure to VAD applications. This study serves as a temperature check of this key stakeholder group's perspectives on the VAD Act in the first eight months of its operation.