Too ill to will? deathbed wills: assessing testamentary capacity near the end of life

Assessing testamentary capacity in the terminal phase of an illness or at a person's deathbed is fraught with challenges for both doctors and lawyers. Numerous issues need to be considered when assessing capacity for a will. These issues are exacerbated when such an assessment needs to be undertaken at the bedside of a dying patient. The nature and severity of the illness, effects on cognition of the terminal illness, effects of medication, urgency, psychological and emotional factors, interactions with carers, family and lawyers, and a range of other issues confound and complicate the assessment of capacity. What is the doctor's role in properly assessing capacity in this context and how does this role intersect with the legal issues? Doctors will play an increasing role in assessing testamentary capacity in this setting. The ageing of society, more effective treatment of acute illness and, often, the prolongation of dying are only some of the factors leading to this increasing need. However, despite its importance and increasing prevalence, the literature addressing this challenging practical area is scarce and offers limited guidance. This paper examines these challenges and discusses some practical approaches.

Futility and the law: Knowledge, practice and attitudes of doctors in end of life care

Despite the potential harm to patients (and others) and the financial cost of providing futile treatment at the end of life, this practice occurs. This article reports on empirical research undertaken in Queensland that explores doctors’ perceptions about the law that governs futile treatment at the end of life, and the role it plays in medical practice. The findings reveal that doctors have poor knowledge of their legal obligations and powers when making decisions about withholding or withdrawing futile treatment at the end of life; their attitudes towards the law were largely negative; and the law affected their clinical practice and had or would cause them to provide futile treatment.

Food waste, power, and corporate social responsibility in the Australian food supply chain

By examining corporate social responsibility (CSR) and power within the context of the food supply chain, this paper illustrates how food retailers claim to address food waste while simultaneously setting standards that result in the large-scale rejection of edible food on cosmetic grounds. Specifically, this paper considers the powerful role of food retailers and how they may be considered to be legitimately engaging in socially responsible behaviors to lower food waste, yet implement practices that ultimately contribute to higher levels of food waste elsewhere in the supply chain. Through interviews with key actors in the Australian fresh fruit and vegetable supply chain, we highlight the existence of a legitimacy gap in corporate social responsibility whereby undesirable behaviors are pushed elsewhere in the supply chain. It is argued that the structural power held by Australia’s retail duopoly means that supermarkets are able to claim virtuous and responsible behaviors, despite counter claims from within the fresh food industry that the food supermarkets’ private quality standards mean that fresh food is wasted. We argue that the supermarkets claim CSR kudos for reducing food waste at the expense of other supply chain actors who bear both the economic cost and the moral burden of waste, and that this is a consequence of supermarkets’ remarkable market power in Australia.