Critically impaired infants and end of life decision making : resource allocation and difficult decisions

Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment are contentious, and offer difficult moral dilemmas to both medical practitioners and the judiciary. This issue is exacerbated when the patient is unable to exercise autonomy and is entirely dependent on the will of others.This book focuses on the legal and ethical complexities surrounding end of life decisions for critically impaired and extremely premature infants. Neera Bhatia explores decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from critically impaired infants and addresses the controversial question, which lives are too expensive to treat? Bringing to bear such key issues as clinical guidance, public awareness, and resource allocation, the book provides a rational approach to end of life decision making, where decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment may trump other competing interests.The book will be of great interest and use to scholars and students of bioethics, medical law, and medical practitioners.

Development of mev-eds methodology for forensic analysis on automotive headlights

A comparative study between three automotive headlights (conventional, halogen, and HID lamp) using scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy dispersive spectrometry (SEM-EDS) is described. Results show the possibility of conducting topographic and qualitative analysis of automotive light bulbs from vehicles involved in traffic accidents on the basis of similarities between the waste glass material left on the filaments. This should provide evidence as to whether the bulbs were energized at the time of the accident.

Estudo de caso: vítima afogada e atacada por piranhas na região do Pantanal de Mato Grosso-Brasil

In this study we evaluated an attacked-by-piranha human male cadaver in Mato Grosso’s Pantanal.

Desperately seeking donors: The 'saviour siblings' decision in quintaville v human fertilisation embryology authority (UK)

The recent House of Lords decision in Quintavalle v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has raised difficult and complex issues regarding the extent to which embryo selection and reproductive technology can be used as a means of rectifying genetic disorders and treating critically ill children. This comment outlines the facts of Quintavalle and explores how the House of Lords approached the legal, ethical and policy issues that arose out of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's (UK) decision to allow reproductive and embryo technology to be used to produce a 'saviour sibling' whose tissue could be used to save the life of a critically ill child. Particular attention will be given to the implications of the decision in Quintavalle for Australian family and medical law and policy. As part of this focus, the comment explores the current Australian legislative and policy framework regarding the use of genetic and reproductive technology as a mechanism through which to assist critically ill siblings. It is argued that the present Australian framework would appear to impose significant limits on the medical uses of genetic technology and, in this context, would seem to reflect many of the principles that were articulated by the House of Lords in Quintavalle.

Patients and doctors working together in partnership:Birch v UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2008] EWHC 2237 (QB)

Of the myriad of pressing topics current in medical law and ethics, the issue of informed consent appears to be the ‘plainer sibling’. The decision by Cranston J in Birch v UCL Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in 2008 has brought into sharp relief that which many commentators already held to be true. Far from being the ‘plainer sibling’ when weighed against other prominent issues in medical law and ethics, the doctrine of informed consent, is one of the most significant principles to emerge in recent years.

'He was like a zombie':off-label prescription of antipsychotic drugs in dementia

This paper explores the legal position of the off-label prescription of antipsychotic medications to people with dementia who experience behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Dementia is a challenging illness, and BPSD can be very difficult for carers to manage, with evidence that this contributes to carer strain and can result in the early institutionalisation of people with dementia. As a result, the prescription of antipsychotic and other neuroleptic medications to treat BPSD has become commonplace, in spite of these drugs being untested and unlicensed for use to treat older people with dementia. In recent years, it has become apparent through clinical trials that antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and death in people with dementia. In addition, these types of medication also have other risk factors for people with dementia, including over-sedation and worsening of cognitive function. Drawing on recent questionnaire (n = 185), focus group (n = 15), and interview (n = 11) data with carers of people with dementia, this paper explores the law relating to off-label prescription, and the applicability of medical negligence law to cases where adverse events follow the use of antipsychotic medication. It is argued that the practice of off-label prescribing requires regulatory intervention in order to protect vulnerable patients. © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Pharmacy legislation:public protector or professional hindrance?

Pharmacy originates from a background of medication compounding and supply. More recently, this role has developed away from an absolute focus on the supply of pharmaceuticals with, for example, the advent of pharmacist prescribing. Nevertheless, for a majority of the profession, medication supply remains a core activity. Regulation of the pharmacy profession is now the responsibility of the General Pharmaceutical Council, although up until 27 September 2010, this role fell to the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). Before this change, in one of the most high-profile legal cases involving a pharmacist in a professional capacity, R. v Lee, a pharmacist was prosecuted firstly for gross negligence manslaughter, later revised to offences under the Medicines Act 1968, for a single error relating to medication supply, and was given a suspended custodial sentence. Offences against sections 64 or 85 of the Medicines Act are absolute offences and there is no due diligence defence. Prosecution of a pharmacist for the supply of incorrect medication may seem a measured course of action to protect the public from the wrongful supply of potent pharmacotherapeutic agents; however, further analysis of Lee indicates that this approach may be counterproductive. An appeal of the original conviction in the Lee case has resulted in a clarification of the interpretation of section 85(5); however currently, prosecutions under section 64 are still a possibility. Owing to the seriousness of a criminal conviction under section 64, this continuation will potentially stifle the profession's ability to learn from dispensing errors. © The Author [2013]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

End-of-life care: identifying an appropriate legal framework for specialist palliative care in Ireland

This thesis argues that the legal framework in Ireland for specialist palliative care is inadequate and consequently a more appropriate legal framework must be identified. This research is guided by three central research questions. The first central research question examines the legitimacy of the distinction between specialist palliative care and euthanasia. The second central research question asks what legal framework currently exists in Ireland for specialist palliative care. The third central research question examines an alternative legal framework for specialist palliative. This thesis is composed of seven chapters. The first Chapter is an introduction to the thesis and defines the terminology and the central research questions. Chapter Two explores the development and practice of palliative care in Ireland. Chapter Three examines the distinction in criminal law between specialist palliative care practices and euthanasia. Chapter Four examines the human rights framework for specialist palliative care. Chapter Five critiques the regulatory framework in Ireland for specialist palliative care. Having gained a thorough understanding of palliative care and the related legal framework, this thesis then engages in comparative analysis of the Netherlands which is used as a source of ideas for reform in Ireland. Chapter Seven is the concluding chapter and, in it, the main findings of this thesis are summarised. The main findings being that: the distinction between specialist palliative care and euthanasia is not sufficiently supported by justifications such as a double effect or the acts and omissions distinction, there is no clear decision-making framework in Ireland for specialist palliative care, and the current legal framework lacks clarity and does not promote consistency between providers of specialist palliative care. This Chapter also proposes that detailed professional standards and guidelines are likely to be the most appropriate way to effect individual and institutional change in the provision of specialist palliative care.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. The reversal of the onus of proof through the obvious risk sections has attempted to extend the scope of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk. There is no liability for the materialisation of an inherent risk. Presumptions and mandatory reductions for contributory negligence have attempted to reduce the liability of defendants. It is now possible for reductions of 100% for contributory negligence. Apologies can be made with no admission of legal liability to encourage them being made and thereby reduce the number of actions being commenced. The peer acceptance defence has been introduced and enacted by legislation. There is protection for good samaritans even though the Ipp Report recommended against such protection. Limitation periods have been amended. Provisions relating to mental harm have been introduced re-instating the requirement of normal fortitude and direct perception. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Defences in medical negligence : to what extent has tort law reform in Australia limited the liability of health professionals?

Tort law reform has resulted in legislation being passed by all Australian jurisdictions in the past decade implementing the recommendations contained in the Ipp Report. The report was in response to a perceived crisis in medical indemnity insurance. The objective was to restrict and limit liability in negligence actions. This paper will consider to what extent the reforms have impacted on the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions. After an analysis of the legislation, it will be argued in this paper that while there has been some limitation and restriction, courts have generally interpreted the civil liability reforms in compliance with the common law. It has been the impact of statutory limits on the assessment of damages through thresholds and caps which has limited the liability of health professionals in medical negligence actions.

Medical science and the law

Advances in medical science have presented both law and bioethics with some of the most fascinating questions of our time. As science continues to forge ahead into new frontiers, in fields such as reproductive technology, human genetics, cloning technologies, and stem cell research, questions have arisen over the role for law in regulating this new terrain. The speed with which medical science has advanced, and continues to advance, can make it difficult to formulate appropriate regulatory responses. The rapid pace of scientific change and the increasing complexity of the science can present hurdles and barriers to the engagement of the public with science and the legal and ethical issues raised by it.

Pacific Rim treaty threatens public health: Patent law and medical procedures

Doctors, surgeons, and physicians around the Pacific Rim should be concerned by the proposals revealed by WikiLeaks in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). One of the most controversial features of the TPP is the proposal to provide for patent protection in respect of medical procedures. As Public Citizen observed, ‘Health providers, including surgeons, could be liable for the methods they use to treat patients.’ The civil society group noted: ‘Essentially, except for when a surgeon uses her bare hands, surgical methods would be patentable under the U.S. proposal.’ The TPP takes a broad approach to patents and medicine; lacks appropriate safeguards; and fails to address larger questions about equity, development, and human rights. Such a measure could result in greater litigation against medical professionals; barriers to access to medical procedures for patients; and skyrocketing health costs.

What’s law got to do with it?: Medical negligence, causation and the use of policy

In a medical negligence context, and under the causation provisions enacted pursuant to Civil Liability Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions, the normative concept of “scope of liability” requires a consideration of whether or not and why a medical practitioner should be responsible for a patient’s harm. As such, it places a limit on the extent to which practitioners are deemed liable for a breach of the duty of care owed by them, in circumstances where a legal factual connection between that breach and the causation of a patient’s harm has already been shown. It has been said that a determination of causation requires ‘the identification and articulation of an evaluative judgement by reference to “the purposes and policy of the relevant part of the law”’: Wallace v Kam (2013) 297 ALR 383, 388. Accordingly, one of the normative factors falling within scope of liability is an examination of the content and purpose of the rule or duty of care violated – that is, its underlying policy and whether this supports an attribution of legal responsibility upon a practitioner. In this context, and with reference to recent jurisprudence, this paper considers: the policy relevant to a practitioner’s duty of care in each of the areas of diagnosis, treatment and advice; how this has been used to determine an appropriate scope of liability for the purpose of the causation inquiry in medical negligence claims; and whether such an approach is problematic for medical standards or decision-making.

Intention and Causation in Medical Non-Killing: The impact of criminal law concepts on euthanasia and assisted suicide

null RAE2008