Termination of a minor’s pregnancy : critical issues for consent and the criminal law

The recent Supreme Court decision of Queensland v B [2008] 2 Qd R 562 has significant implications for the law that governs consent and abortions. The judgment purports to extend the ratio of Secretary, Department of Health and Community Services (NT) v JWB and SMB (1991) 175 CLR 218 (Marion’s Case) and impose a requirement of court approval for terminations of pregnancy for minors who are not Gillick-competent. This article argues against the imposition of this requirement on the ground that such an approach is an unjustifiable extension of the reasoning in Marion’s Case. The decision, which is the first judicial consideration in Queensland of the position of medical terminations, also reveals systemic problems with the criminal law in that State. In concluding that the traditional legal excuse for abortions will not apply to those which are performed medically, Queensland v B provides further support for calls to reform this area of law.

Teachers reporting child sexual abuse : towards evidence-based reform of law, policy and practice

This report presents the results of the largest study ever conducted into the law, policy and practice of primary school teachers’ reporting of child sexual abuse in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. The study included the largest Australian survey of teachers about reporting sexual abuse, in both government and non-government schools (n=470). Our research has produced evidence-based findings to enhance law, policy and practice about teachers’ reporting of child sexual abuse. The major benefits of our findings and recommendations are to: • Show how the legislation in each State can be improved; • Show how the policies in government and non-government school sectors can be improved; and • Show how teacher training can be improved. These improvements can enhance the already valuable contribution that teachers are making to identify cases of child sexual abuse. Based on the findings of our research, this report proposes solutions to issues in seven key areas of law, policy and practice. These solutions are relevant for State Parliaments, government and non-government educational authorities, and child protection departments. The solutions in each State are practicable, low-cost, and align with current government policy approaches. Implementing these solutions will: • protect more children from sexual abuse; • save cost to governments and society; • develop a professional teacher workforce better equipped for their child protection role; and • protect government and school authorities from legal liability.

Health law in Australia

Health Law in Australia is the first book to deal with health law on a comprehensive national basis. In a field of law that is becoming increasingly important and where the demand for expertise is rapidly expanding, Health Law in Australia takes a logical, structured approach to an examination of the law in all Australian jurisdictions. By covering all the major areas in this diverse field of law, Health Law in Australia enhances the understanding of the discipline as a whole. Beginning with an exploration of the general principles of health law, including chapters on “Medical Negligence”, “Children and Consent”, and “Confidentiality, Privacy, and Access to Health Records”, the book goes on to consider beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues before concluding with chapters on emerging areas in health law, such as biotechnology and medical research. The contributing authors include national leaders in the field who are specialists in these areas of health law and who can therefore reveal to readers the results of their research. Health Law in Australia has been written for those with a legal background and is essential reading for undergraduate law students, postgraduate law students, researchers and scholars in the disciplines of law, health and medicine, as well as legal practitioners, government departments and bodies in the health area, and private health providers.

Health law : scope, sources and forces

• For the purposes of this chapter, “health law” encapsulates regulation of the medical and health professions, the administration of health services and the maintenance of public health to the extent that it is connected to the provision of health services. • There are diverging views as to whether health law can be regarded as a discrete “area of law”. • Health law draws on other areas of law such as tort law, criminal law and family law. It is also draws upon other disciplines, most notably medical and health ethics. • Social and economic forces have influenced the development and direction of health law, and these forces may become even more influential as the century develops. • The increasingly globalised world has implications for Australia’s health systems and raises questions and creates commitments in respect of the international community. • Technological developments, including in respect of treatment, diagnosis and information management, create ongoing challenges for health law. • Patient rights, human rights and consumerism are increasingly key drivers in the development of health law. • Health law is significant to contemporary Australian society because of the gravity of the topics that fall within its ambit, its social relevance to so many aspects of human existence and endeavour, the important role it plays in protecting the vulnerable, and the extent to which it engages with fundamental principles of justice.

Law autonomy and advance directives

The principle of autonomy underpins legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. The primacy of autonomy in this domain is recognised expressly in the case law, through judicial pronouncement, and implicitly in most Australian jurisdictions, through enactment into statute of the right to make an advance directive. This article seeks to justify autonomy as an appropriate principle for regulating advance directives and relies on three arguments: the necessity of autonomy in a liberal democracy; the primacy of autonomy in medical ethics discourse; and the uncontested importance of autonomy in the law on contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. This article also responds to key criticisms that autonomy is not an appropriate organising principle to underpin legal regulation of advance directives.

Female genital mutilation : Australian law, policy and practical challenges for doctors

As long ago as 1994, the Family Law Council accepted it was likely that female genital mutilation (FGM) was being conducted in Australia. In 2010, doctors and hospitals reported that it is being conducted and that they are seeing female patients who have experienced FGM. It is impossible to obtain precise data about the extent to which it is performed in Australia, but data indicates that FGM is a relevant issue for Australian medical practitioners. The medical profession has an interest in this topic because its members may be asked to conduct FGM, advise those considering it, or treat female patients with effects from the practice. This article provides a background on the practice of FGM, explains the relevant Australian law, considers whether the current legal prohibition on FGM is justified, and discusses the practical challenges facing individual practitioners and the profession. To inform further discussions about methods of responding to demand for FGM, reference is made to strategies being promoted in African nations to abolish this cultural practice.

Is there a physicality requirement at Common Law? : a survey of the Pre-NRDC cases discussing ‘Manufacture’

One of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today, both in Australia and in other jurisdictions, is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether Australian patent law contains a physicality requirement. Despite being recently considered by the Federal Court, this is arguably an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in Australia. In its 2006 decision in Grant v Commissioner of Patents, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia found that the patentable subject matter standard is rooted in the physical, when it held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patent eligible. That decision, however, has been the subject of scrutiny in the academic literature. This article seeks to add to the existing literature written in response to the Grant decision by examining in detail the key common law cases decided prior to the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, which is the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regards to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This article, in conjunction with others written by the author, questions the Federal Court’s assertion in Grant that the physicality requirement it established is consistent with existing law.

Palliative care, double effect and the law in Australia

Care and decision-making at the end of life that promotes comfort and dignity is widely endorsed by public policy and the law. In ethical analysis of palliative care interventions that are argued potentially to hasten death, these may be deemed to be ethically permissible by the application of the doctrine of double effect, if the doctor’s intention is to relieve pain and not cause death. In part because of the significance of ethics in the development of law in the medical sphere, this doctrine is also likely to be recognized as part of Australia’s common law, although hitherto there have been no cases concerning palliative care brought before a court in Australia to test this. Three Australian States have, nonetheless, created legislative defences that are different from the common law with the intent of clarifying the law, promoting palliative care, and distinguishing it from euthanasia. However, these defences have the potential to provide less protection for doctors administering palliative care. In addition to requiring a doctor to have an appropriate intent, the defences insist on adherence to particular medical practice standards and perhaps require patient consent. Doctors providing end-of-life care in these States need to be aware of these legislative changes. Acting in accordance with the common law doctrine of double effect may not provide legal protection. Similar changes are likely to occur in other States and Territories as there is a trend towards enacting legislative defences that deal with the provision of palliative care.

Physicality in Australian Patent Law

It is generally understood that the patent system exists to encourage the conception and disclosure of new and useful inventions embodied in machines and other physical devices, along with new methods that physically transform matter from one state to another. What is not well understood is whether, and to what extent, the patent system is to encourage and protect the conception and disclosure of inventions that are non-physical methods – namely those that do not result in a physical transformation of matter. This issue was considered in Grant v Commissioner of Patents. In that case the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that an invention must involve a physical effect or transformation to be patentable subject matter. In doing so, it introduced a physicality requirement into Australian law. What this article seeks to establish is whether the court’s decision is consistent with the case law on point. It does so by examining the key common law cases that followed the High Court’s watershed decision in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents, the undisputed authoritative statement of principle in regard to the patentable subject matter standard in Australia. This is done with a view to determining whether there is anything in those cases that supports the view that the Australian patentable subject matter test contains a physicality requirement.

Physical effect in patent law

This thesis addresses one of the fundamental issues that remains unresolved in patent law today. It is a question that strikes at the heart of what a patent is and what it is supposed to protect. That question is whether an invention must produce a physical effect or cause a physical transformation of matter to be patentable, or whether it is sufficient that an invention involves a specific practical application of an idea or principle to achieve a useful result. In short, the question is whether patent law contains a physicality requirement. Resolving this issue will determine whether only traditional mechanical, industrial and manufacturing processes are patent eligible, or whether patent eligibility extends to include purely intangible, or non-physical, products and processes. To this end, this thesis seeks to identify where the dividing line lies between patentable subject matter and the recognised categories of excluded matter, namely, fundamental principles of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. It involves determining which technological advances are worth the inconvenience monopoly protection causes the public at large, and which should remain free for all to use without restriction. This is an issue that has important ramifications for innovation in the ‘knowledge economy’ of the Information Age. Determining whether patent law contains a physicality requirement is integral to deciding whether much of the valuable innovation we are likely to witness, in what are likely to be the emerging areas of technology in the near future, will receive the same encouragement as industrial and manufacturing advances of previous times.

What do emergency physicians think of law?

What do emergency physicians think of law? Do they know the law? What role does it have in the practice of emergency medicine? Emergency physicians in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are being asked about these issues in a study by the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, titled ‘Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity: The role of law in medical practice’. The study aims to examine the role that law plays in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity.

Should law have a role in end-of-life care?

What do physicians think of law? Do they know the law? What role does it have in the provision of end-of-life care? Physicians in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are being asked about these issues in a study by the Queensland University of Technology entitled ‘Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity: The role of law in medical practice’. This research aims to examine the role that law plays in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity.

The battered child syndrome : changes in the law and child advocacy

In 1962, Dr C. Henry Kempe and his colleagues published the single most important article written to date about child maltreatment: The Battered-Child Syndrome. This chapter analyses the threefold nature of what these authors achieved: clearly identifing the medical evidence of severe child physical abuse and naming it as a syndrome; identifying the medical profession's resistance to its identification; and then translating their scholarship into advocacy for social and legal change. The chapter also traces some of the effects of Kempe's work, including the nature and effect of the subsequent introduction of mandatory reporting laws in the USA and internationally.

Cutting the Gordian knot of futility : a case for law reform on unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment

In this paper, we propose law reform with respect to the unilateral withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is, where a doctor withholds or withdraws potentially life-sustaining treatment without consent from a patient or a patient’s substitute decision-maker (where the patient lacks capacity), or authorisation from a court or tribunal, or by operation of a statute or justifiable government or institutional policy. Our proposal is grounded in the core values that do (or should) underpin a regulatory framework on an issue such as this; these values are drawn from existing commitments made by Australia and New Zealand through legislation, the common law, and conventions and treaties. It is also grounded in a critical review of the law on unilateral withholding and withdrawal as well as the legal context within which this issue sits in Australasia. We argue that the current law is inconsistent with the core values and develop a proposal for a legal response to this issue that more closely aligns with the core values it is supposed to serve.

Health Law in Australia [Second Edition]

Health Law in Australia is the country’s leading text in this area and was the first book to deal with health law on a comprehensive national basis. In this important field that continues to give rise to challenges for society Health Law in Australia takes a logical, structured approach to explain the breadth of this area of law across all Australian jurisdictions. By covering all the major areas in this diverse field, Health Law in Australia enhances the understanding of the discipline as a whole. Beginning with an exploration of the general principles of health law, including chapters on “Negligence”, “Children and Consent to Medical Treatment”, and “Medical Confidentiality and Patient Privacy”, the book goes on to consider beginning-of-life and end-of-life issues before concluding with chapters on emerging areas in health law, such as biotechnology, genetic technologies and medical research. The contributing authors are national leaders who are specialists in these areas of health law and who can share with readers the results of their research. Health Law in Australia has been written for both legal and health audiences and is essential reading for undergraduate and postgraduate students, researchers and scholars in the disciplines of law, health and medicine, as well as health and legal practitioners, government departments and bodies in the health area, and private health providers.