Lifting the lifegiving dollar : case samples of creative practice in health and medical research philanthropy

This study aims to stimulate thought, debate and action for change on this question of more vigorous philanthropic funding of Australian health and medical research (HMR). It sharpens the argument with some facts and ideas about HMR funding from overseas sources. It also reports informed opinions from those working, giving and innovating in this area. It pinpoints the range of attitudes to HMR giving, both positive and negative. The study includes some aspects of Government funding as part of the equation, viewing Government as major HMR givers, with particular ability to partner, leverage and create incentives. Stimulating new philanthropy takes active outreach. The opportunity to build more dialogue between the HMR industry and the wider community is timely given the ‘licence to practice’ issues and questioned trust that applies currently somewhat both to science and to the charitable sector. This interest in improving HMR philanthropy also coincides with the launch last year by the Federal Government of Nonprofit Australia Limited (NAL), a group currently assessing infrastructure improvements to the charitable sector. History suggests no one will create this change if Research Australia does not. However, interest in change exists in various quarters. For Research Australia to successfully change the culture of Australian HMR giving, the process will drive the outcomes. Obviously stakeholder buy-in and partners will be needed and the ultimate blueprint for greater philanthropic HMR funding here will not be this document. Instead it will be the one that wears the handprint and ‘mindprint’ of the many architects and implementers interested in promoting HMR philanthropy, from philanthropists to nonprofit peaks to government policy arms. As the African proverb says, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go far, go with others’.

QUT Medical Engineering Research Facility (MERF) annual report 2009

DIRECTOR’S OVERVIEW by Professor Mark Pearcy This report for 2009 is the first full year report for MERF. The development of our activities in 2009 has been remarkable and is testament to the commitment of the staff to the vision of MERF as a premier training and research facility. From the beginnings in 2003, when a need was identified for the provision of specialist research and training facilities to enable close collaboration between researchers and clinicians, to the realisation of the vision in 2009 has been an amazing journey. However, we have learnt that there is much more that can be achieved and the emphasis will be on working with the university, government and external partners to realise the full potential of MERF by further development of the Facility. In 2009 we conducted 28 workshops in the Anatomical and Surgical Skills Laboratory providing training for surgeons in the latest techniques. This was an excellent achievement for the first full year as our reputation for delivering first class facilities and support grows. The highlight, perhaps, was a course run via our video link by a surgeon in the USA directing the participants in MERF. In addition, we have continued to run a small number of workshops in the operating theatre and this promises to be an avenue that will be of growing interest. Final approval was granted for the QUT Body Bequest Program late in 2009 following the granting of an Anatomical Accepting Licence. This will enable us to expand our capabilities by provide better material for the workshops. The QUT Body Bequest Program will be launched early in 2010. The Biological Research Facility (BRF) conducted over 270 procedures in 2009. This is a wonderful achievement considering less then 40 were performed in 2008. The staff of the BRF worked very hard to improve the state of the old animal house and this resulted in approval for expanded use by the ethics committees of both QUT and the University of Queensland. An external agency conducted an Occupational Health and Safety Audit of MERF in 2009. While there were a number of small issues that require attention, the auditor congratulated the staff of MERF on achieving a good result, particularly for such an early stage in the development of MERF. The journey from commissioning of MERF in 2008 to the full implementation of its activities in 2009 has demonstrated the potential of this facility and 2010 will be an exciting year as its activities are recognised and further expanded building development is pursued.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

• At common law, a competent adult can refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, either contemporaneously or through an advance directive which will operate at a later time when the adult’s capacity is lost. • Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions also provides for a competent adult to complete an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment. • At common law, a court exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction can consent to, or authorise, the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining medical treatment from an adult or child who lacks capacity if that is in the best interests of the person. A court may also declare that the withholding or withdrawal of treatment is lawful. • Guardianship legislation in most jurisdictions allows a substitute decision-maker, in an appropriate case, to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for an adult who lacks capacity. • In terms of children, a parent may refuse life-sustaining medical treatment for his or her child if it is in the child’s best interests. • While a refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment by a competent child may be valid, this decision can be overturned by a court. • At common law and generally under guardianship statutes, demand for futile treatment need not be complied with by doctors.

Securing medical research data with a rights management system

We propose a digital rights management approach for sharing electronic health records for research purposes and argue advantages of the approach. We give an outline of our implementation, discuss challenges that we faced and future directions.

Using digital rights management for securing data in a medical research environment

We propose a digital rights management approach for sharing electronic health records in a health research facility and argue advantages of the approach. We also give an outline of the system under development and our implementation of the security features and discuss challenges that we faced and future directions.

Children and consent to medical treatment

This chapter deals with the law concerning children and consent to medical treatment. Where a child under the age of 18 requires medical treatment, issues arise as to who may lawfully consent to the treatment and under what circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, consent may be given by the child’s parent or guardian; the child; or a court. The chapter provides a thorough treatment of Australian law about these issues and circumstances.

Finding a way through the ethical and legal maze : withdrawing medical treatment and euthanasia

This article examines Finnis' and Keown's claim that the intention/foresight distinction should be used as the basis for the lawfulness of withholding and withdrawing medical treatment, rather than the act/omission distinction which is currently used. I argue that whilst the intention/foresight distinction is sound and can apply to palliative pain relief hastening death, it cannot be applied to withholding and withdrawing medical treatment. Instead, the act/omission distinction remains the better basis for the lawfulness of withholding and withdrawal, and law reform is consequently unnecessary.

Recent developments : loss of chance in medical litigation : Tabet v Gett [2010] HCA 12.

Following the judgement of the High Court in Tabet v Gett [2010]HCA 12 handed down on 21 April 2010 it appears that in Australia there is now very limited scope for recovery in negligence for the loss of a chance of a better medical outcome.