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.

Teachers’ attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse : problems with existing research leading to new scale development

This paper details a systematic literature review identifying problems in extant research relating to teachers’ attitudes towards reporting child sexual abuse, and offers a model for new attitude scale development and testing. Scale development comprised a five-phase process grounded in contemporary attitude theories including: a) developing the initial item pool; b) conducting a panel review; c) refining the scale via an expert focus group; d) building content validity through cognitive interviews; e) assessing internal consistency via field testing. The resulting 21-item scale displayed construct validity in preliminary testing. The scale may prove useful as a research tool, given the theoretical supposition that attitudes may be changed with time, context, experience, and education. Further investigation with a larger sample is warranted.

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.

Adults who lack capacity : substitute decision-making

• Mechanisms to facilitate consent to healthcare for adults who lack capacity are necessary to ensure that these adults can lawfully receive appropriate medical treatment when needed. • In Australia, the common law plays only a limited role in this context, through its recognition of advance directives and through the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior courts. • Substitute decision-making for adults who lack capacity is facilitated primarily by guardianship and other related legislation. This legislation, which has been enacted in all Australian States and Territories, permits a range of decision-makers to make different types of healthcare decisions. • Substitute decision-makers can be appointed by the adult or by a guardianship or other tribunal. Where there is no appointed decision-maker, legislation generally empowers those close to the adult to make the relevant decision. Most Australian jurisdictions have also provided for statutory advance directives. • For the most serious of decisions, such as non-therapeutic sterilisations, consent can only be provided by a Tribunal. Other decisions can generally be made by a range of substitute decision-makers. Some treatment, such as very minor treatment or that which is needed in an emergency, can be provided without consent. • Guardianship legislation generally establishes a set of principles and/or other criteria to guide healthcare decisions. Mechanisms to resolve disputes as to who is the appropriate decision-maker and how a decision should be made have also been established.

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.

The doctrine of double effect

• The doctrine of double effect is an exception to the general rule that taking active steps that end life is unlawful. • The essence of the doctrine at common law is intention. • Hastening a patient’s death through palliative care will be lawful provided the primary intention is to relieve pain, and not cause death, even if that death is foreseen. • Some States have enacted legislative excuses that deal with the provision of palliative care. • These statutory excuses tend to be stricter than the common law as they impose other requirements in addition to having an appropriate intent, such as adherence to some level of recognised medical practice.

Everyday life and the edges of existence : wrongs with no name or the wrong name?

Actions for wrongful life, as they have come unfortunately to be styled, encompass various types of claim. These include claims for alleged negligence after conception, those based on negligent advice or diagnosis prior to conception concerning possible effects of treatment given to the child's mother, contraception or sterilisation, or genetic disability. This distinguishes such claims from those for so called wrongful birth, which are claims by parents for the cost of raising either a healthy or a disabled child where the unplanned birth imposes costs on the parents as a result of clinical negligence. Two of the more controversial cases to have reached the High Court of Australia which are if interest to us here in the past decade are Cattanach v Melchior where the court, by a narrow majority (McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Callinan JJ; Gleeson CJ, Hayne and Heydon dissenting) acknowledged recovery for wrongful birth. In the second joined appeals of Harriton v Stephens and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan the court overwhelmingly precluded a ‘wrongful life’ claim (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ; Kirby J dissenting). Both cases raised issues around the sanctity and value of life and the nature of harm and the assessment of damages, and this brief note affords us the opportunity to consider the way in which the ‘life as legal loss’ arguments were treated by the various judges in both cases.

The legal framework of the Australian health system

This chapter is about the role of law in the creation and operation of Australian health systems. Accordingly, this chapter discusses how law regulates the way in which health services in Australia are funded, organised, regulated, managed, operated and governed. (The question of how health professionals are regulated is discussed in Chapter 15.) Although the focus of much of health law is on legal mechanisms for the resolution of disputes or disagreements between the state, health providers, professionals, patients and families and friends, and through dispute resolutions processes setting standards for practice, these are only some of the “jobs” that health law performs. In health systems where the state undertakes a significant role in regulating, funding, managing and providing health services, health law also performs an important constitutive function. Health law declares the values upon which the health system is based, shapes social processes to achieve public ends and provides a structure for the complex interactions that occur within a modern health system. Health law regulates decision-makers in health systems by establishing who has the power to participate in decisions and in what circumstances, establishing processes through which decisions are made and creating mechanisms for decision-makers to be held publicly accountable. It is this broader constitutive function of health law that is a primary focus of much of this chapter — how and why governments use their legislative powers to structure and shape the health system.

The regulation of health professionals

This chapter is about the role of law in the management of the health workforce in Australia. Health professionals play an important role in the health system as the providers of treatment and care — without health professionals health systems would not function. The relationship between health professionals and patients has always been complex and is often subject to some form of regulation by the state. The first surviving written reference to such legal regulation dates from 1795-1750 BCE when the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi stated: “If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.” Alexander the Great recommended the crucifixion of health professionals who killed their patients. Fortunately, the law in Australia prescribes lesser penalties for erring health professionals, but at the heart of modern regulation are similar concerns to those that underpinned the ancient Babylonian Code — to create conditions to ensure the safety of patients and the provision of quality services by health professionals.

Play a role in the patent puzzle

Discusses the contentious issues surrounding computer software patents and patenting in connection with the Peer-to-Patent Australia project, a joint initiative of Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and New York Law School (NYLS) that operates with the support and endorsement of IP Australia, the government body housing Australia's patent office. Explains that the project is based on the successful Peer-to-Patent pilots run recently in the USA and Japan that are designed to improve the quality of issued patents and the patent examination process by facilitating community participation in that process. Describes how members of the public are allowed to put forward prior art references that will be considered by IP Australia's patent examiners when determining whether participating applications are novel and inventive, and therefore deserving of a patent. Concludes that, while Peer-to-Patent Australia is not a complete solution to the problems besetting patent law, the model has considerable advantages over the traditional model of patent examination

The patentability of non-physical inventions : lessons from the United States

Patent systems around the world are being pressed to recognise and protect challengingly new and exciting subject matter in order to keep pace with the rapid technological advancement of our age and the fact we are moving into the era of the ‘knowledge economy’. This rapid development and pressure to expand the bounds of what has traditionally been recognised as patentable subject matter has created uncertainty regarding what it is that the patent system is actually supposed to protect. Among other things, the patent system has had to contend with uncertainty surrounding claims to horticultural and agricultural methods, artificial living micro-organisms, methods of treating the human body, computer software and business methods. The contentious issue of the moment is one at whose heart lies the important distinction between what is a mere abstract idea and what is properly an invention deserving of the monopoly protection afforded by a patent. That question is whether purely intangible inventions, being methods that do not involve a physical aspect or effect or cause a physical transformation of matter, constitute patentable subject matter. This paper goes some way to addressing these uncertainties by considering how the Australian approach to the question can be informed by developments arising in the United States of America, and canvassing some of the possible lessons we in Australia might learn from the approaches taken thus far in the United States.

The peer-to-patent initiative : revitalizing patent examination with peer review

Every day we hear someone complain that this or that patent should not have been granted. People complain that the patent system is now a threat to existing business and innovation be- cause the patent office grants with alarming regularity patents for inventions that are neither novel nor non-obvious. People argue that the patent office cannot keep up with the job of examining the backlog of hundreds of thousands of patents and that, even if it could, the large volumes of prior art literature that need to be considered each time a patent application is received make the decision as to whether a patent should be granted or not a treacherous one.