Journal of law and medicine
-
R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2012] EWHC 2381 was a tragic case that considered a perennial question: whether voluntary active euthanasia is murder. The traditional position was affirmed, that is, it is indeed murder. The law's treatment of decisions to refuse treatment resulting in death is a stark contrast to the position in respect of voluntary, active euthanasia. ⋯ This article presents an overview of the legal distinction between refusing medical treatment and voluntary, active euthanasia. It questions the purported differences between what are described as acts of "active" or "passive" euthanasia. It also highlights the inconsistency of the law's treatment of different ways that people decide to die.
-
The failure of medical practitioners to discharge their obligation consistently to report sudden or unnatural deaths to coroners has rightly prompted concern. Following recent public scandals, coroners and health authorities have increasingly developed procedures to ensure that concerning deaths are reported to coroners. ⋯ The Office of the State Coroner in Queensland has recently trialled a system to assess more rigorously whether deaths apparently resulting from natural causes, which have been reported to a coroner, should be investigated by the coroner, rather than being finalised by a doctor issuing a cause of death certificate. This article describes that trial and its results.
-
The familial nature of genetic information means that information about one family member may have relevance for the health of genetic relatives; however, patients are not always willing to share relevant information. This article outlines groundbreaking legislative developments in Australia which create a lawful pathway for health practitioners to make disclosure of genetic information to genetic relatives notwithstanding refusal by the patient to consent to such disclosure. ⋯ Pursuant to these changes, health practitioners are not legally obliged to make disclosure but are legally able to do so without breaching statutory privacy obligations. The aim is to encourage this as best practice in appropriate circumstances but questions remain regarding the interplay between ethics and law if disclosure is indicated but not made with adverse health consequences for the relatives.
-
In 2009 the Australian Federal Government released its Maternity Services Review. Since then, homebirth has been virtually outlawed for those women who are unable to obtain one of the limited places on a publicly funded program. ⋯ At its core, the controversy over homebirth is about the control of pregnant women's bodies, particularly when they make a choice about their bodies and their babies which sits outside of the mainstream. While only a minority of Australian women presently plan a homebirth, the issues surrounding the status of homebirth have wider implications for women and illustrate a troubling trend towards restricting choice through legal and administrative back-roads, without proper consideration of the risks or benefits involved.
-
As with other medical specialties, litigation in sports medicine appears to be on the increase. In most countries, the applicable legal standard is "good medical practice" as identified with reference to the physician's own field of specialisation: what is commonly done by physicians in the same specialty generally serves as the standard by which a physician's conduct is measured. ⋯ Another relevant field is doping: for any act of drug prescription to be legally sound, sports physicians have to be aware of the requirements of the World Anti-Doping Agency Code and its international standards. Ultimately, the best way for sports physicians to avoid sources of liability is for them to keep up to date with the latest research and to act in a careful and diligent manner.