Journal of law and medicine
-
Re Jamie (No 2) is an important decision of the Full Family Court that significantly clarifies the law concerning "special medical procedures". The court has held that so-called stage one treatment for gender dysphoria, designed to suppress pubertal development, no longer requires judicial approval. ⋯ However, given the consequences of such treatment, and consistently with the authority in Marion's Case, the court will continue to have a "safeguard" role in determining whether Gillick competence exists. The article outlines some cautionary notes about the removal of court oversight at stage one, but argues that the decision is a positive one for enabling access to treatment and ameliorating the financial burden of legal proceedings on the families of transgender adolescents.
-
Access to datasets of personal health information held by government agencies is essential to support public health research and to promote evidence-based public health policy development. Privacy legislation in Australia allows the use and disclosure of such information for public health research. ⋯ Given the public benefit in research using these health information datasets, this article suggests that it is time to recognise a right of access for approved research and that the decisions, and decision-making processes, of government data custodians should be subject to increased scrutiny. The article concludes that researchers should have an avenue of external review where access to information has been denied or unduly delayed.
-
Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient's "best interests". However, the application of the "best interests" test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. ⋯ We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.
-
The contemporary legal theory of virtue jurisprudence provides great insight into the proper practice of Australian tribunal members and the desired operation of tribunals. Virtue jurisprudence identifies the attributes of "good" tribunal members and provides guidance on how legal disputes should be decided. ⋯ Decision-makers must also become conversant with expert evidence and the process of testing expert evidence; they cannot simply defer to the expert on issues of decision-making capacity. This analysis considers the fundamental breaches of human rights that occur when tribunal members fail to execute this multilevel task properly.