Advance Directives and the Promotion of Autonomy: a Comparative Australian Statutory Analysis

Legislation regulating advance directives exists in six Australian jurisdictions. In all of these jurisdictions, legislation was enacted to enshrine the common law right of a competent adult to refuse treatment in advance, even if that treatment was required to sustain life. It was thought that enshrining the common law would also enshrine the principle of autonomy on which the common law was based. This article explores whether this is the case by examining the legislative restrictions that are imposed on a competent adult who wishes to complete an advance directive refusing treatment. The article reviews the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions and concludes that, while many of the legislative restrictions can be justified, many cannot as they effectively erode rather than promote the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment.

Advance Directives Refusing Treatment as an Expression of Autonomy: Do the Courts Practise What They Preach?

The principle of autonomy is at the heart of the right of a competent individual to make an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment, and to have that directive complied with by medical professionals. That right is protected by both the common law and, to an extent, by legislation that has been enacted in the United Kingdom and many jurisdictions in Australia. The courts have a critical role in protecting that autonomy, both in those jurisdictions in which the common law continues to operate, and in those jurisdictions which are now governed by statute, and in which judicial determinations will need to be made about legislative provisions. The problem explored in this article is that while the judiciary espouses the importance of autonomy in its judgments, that rhetoric is frequently not reflected in the decisions that are reached. In the United Kingdom and Australia, there is a relatively small number of decisions that consider the validity and applicability of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. This article critically evaluates all of the publicly available decisions and concludes that there is cause for concern. In some cases, there has been an unprincipled evolution of common law principles, while in others there has been inappropriate adjudication through operational irregularities or failure to apply correct legal principles. Further, some decisions appear to be based on a strained interpretation of the facts of the case. The apparent reluctance of some members of the judiciary to give effect to advance directives that refuse treatment is also evidenced by the language used in the judgments. While the focus of this article is on common law decisions, reference will also be made to legislation and the extent to which it has addressed some of the problems identified in this article.

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.

Advance directives, autonomy and the refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment

As Australian society 1s agemg, individuals are increasingly concerned about managing their future, including making decisions about the medical treatment they may wish to receive or refuse if they lose decision-making capacity. To date, there has been relatively little research into the extent to which legal regulation allows competent adults to make advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment that will bind health professionals and others when a decision needs to be made at a future time. This thesis aims to fill this gap in the research by presenting the results of research into the legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. In the five papers that comprise this thesis, the law that governs this area is examined, and the ethical principle of autonomy is used to critically evaluate that law. The principal finding of this research is that the current scheme of regulation is ineffective to adequately promote the right of a competent adult to make binding advance directives about refusal of medical treatment. The research concludes that legislation should be enacted to enable individuals to complete an advance directive, only imposing restrictions to the extent that this is necessary to promote individual autonomy. The thesis first examines the principle of autonomy upon which the common law (and some statutory law) is expressed to be based, to determine whether that principle is an appropriate one to underpin regulation. 1 The finding of the research is that autonomy can be justified as an organising principle on a number of grounds: it is consistent with the values of a liberal democracy; over recent decades, it is a principle that has been even more prominent within the discipline of medical ethics; and it is the principle which underpins the legal regulation of a related topic, namely the contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. Next, the thesis reviews the common law to determine whether it effectively achieves the goal of promoting autonomy by allowing a competent adult to make an advance directive refusing treatment that will operate if he or she later loses decision-making capacity. 2 This research finds that conunon law doctrine, as espoused by the judiciary, prioritises individual choice by recognising valid advance directives that refuse treatment as binding. However, the research also concludes that the common law, as applied by the judiciary in some cases, may not be effective to promote individual autonomy, as there have been a number of circumstances where advance directives that refuse treatment have not been followed. The thesis then examines the statutory regimes in Australia that regulate advance directives, with a focus on the regulation of advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment.3 This review commences with an examination ofparliamentary debates to establish why legislation was thought to be necessary. It then provides a detailed review of all of the statutory regimes, the extent to which the legislation regulates the form of advance directives, and the circumstances in which they can be completed, will operate and can be ignored by medical professionals. The research finds that legislation was enacted mainly to clarify the common law and bring a level of certainty to the field. Legislative regimes were thought to provide medical professionals with the assurance that compliance with an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment will not expose them to legal sanction. However, the research also finds that the legislation places so many restrictions on when an advance directive refusing treatment can be made, or will operate, that they have not been successful in promoting individual autonomy.

Advance health directives : competing perceptions, intentions and use by patients and doctors in Queensland

This paper reports on mixed method empirical research undertaken with individuals who have completed advance health directives (‘principals’) and doctors who have either attested to the principal’s capacity when the document was completed or been called upon to use these documents in clinical settings. Principals and doctors appear to have different understandings of the purpose of these documents and their role in decision-making about medical treatment. We recommend changes to the advance health directive form in Queensland to promote informed decision-making which will help to better align perceptions of principals and doctors about the role of these documents.

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.

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 all 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.

Assessing capacity in the context of testamentary, enduring power of attorney, and advance care directive documents in Australia

Balancing the competing interests of autonomy and protection of individuals is an escalating challenge confronting an ageing Australian population. Legal and medical professionals are increasingly being asked to determine whether individuals are legally capable to make their own testamentary, financial and/or personal/health care decisions. Diseases such as dementia impact upon cognition which necessitates collaboration between the legal and medical professions to satisfactorily assess the effect of such mentally disabling conditions upon legal competency. Terminological and methodological differences exist between the two professions when assessing capacity in this context which subsequently create miscommunication and misunderstanding. Consequently, it is not necessarily a simple solution for a legal professional to seek the opinion of a medical practitioner. Exacerbating the situation is the fact that no consistent and transparent capacity assessment paradigm currently exists in Australia. Assessments are instead being undertaken on an ad hoc basis dependent upon the skill set of the legal and/or medical professionals involved. A qualitative study seeking the views of legal and medical professionals who practise in this area has been conducted. This incorporated a review of the relevant literature and surveys which informed the semi-structured interviews conducted with 10 legal and 20 medical practitioners. Practitioners were asked whether there is a standard approach to assessment and whether national guidelines would assist. The general consensus was that uniform guidelines would be advantageous. The research also canvassed practitioner views as to the state of the relationship between the professions when assessing capacity. Three promising practices have emerged from this research: first, is the need for the development of national guidelines and supporting principles to satisfactorily assess capacity; second, is the possibility of strengthening the relationship between legal and medical professionals to assist in the satisfactory assessment of legal capacity; and third, the need for increased community education.

Can tissue engineering concepts advance tumor biology research?

Advances in tissue engineering have traditionally led to the design of scaffold- or matrix-based culture systems that better reflect the biological, physical and biochemical environment of the natural extracellular matrix. Although their clinical applications in regenerative medicine tend to receive most of the attention, it is obvious that other areas of biomedical research could be well served by the powerful tools that have already been developed in tissue engineering. In this article, we review the recent literature to demonstrate how tissue engineering platforms can enhance in vitro and in vivo models of tumorigenesis and thus hold great promise to contribute to future cancer research.

Advance Australia Fair : social democratic and conservative politicians’ discourses concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and their health 1972–2001

This paper reports research undertaken as part of a larger project in which we examined whether and how values and beliefs communicated by Australian politicians have shaped decades of health policy and influenced health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples of Australia. To first characterise those values and beliefs we analysed the public statements of the politicians responsible nationally for the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 1972–2001, using critical discourse analysis. We found that four discourses, communicated through words, phrases, sentences and grammatical structures, dominated public statements over the study period. These four discourses focused on the competence and capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to “manage”; matters of control of and responsibility for the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples as “Other”; and the nature of the “problem” concerning the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Analysis of the discursive elements contributing to shaping these four discourses is reported in this paper.

Availability of advance visual information constrains association-football goalkeeping performance during penalty kicks

A pressing concern within the literature on anticipatory perceptual-motor behaviour is the lack of clarity on the applicability of data, observed under video-simulation task constraints, to actual performance in which actions are coupled to perception, as captured during in-situ experimental conditions. We developed an in-situ experimental paradigm which manipulated the duration of anticipatory visual information from a penalty taker’s actions to examine experienced goalkeepers’ vulnerability to deception for the penalty kick in association football. Irrespective of the penalty taker’s kick strategy, goalkeepers initiated movement responses earlier across consecutively earlier presentation points. Overall goalkeeping performance was better in non-deception trials than in deception conditions. In deception trials, the kinematic information presented up until the penalty taker initiated his/her kicking action had a negative effect on goalkeepers’ performance. It is concluded that goalkeepers are likely to benefit from not anticipating a penalty taker’s performance outcome based on information from the run-up, in preference to later information that emerges just before the initiation of the penalty taker’s kicking action.

Leveraging R&D to advance digital modelling practice in Australian construction

This paper describes a lead project currently underway through Australia’s Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre, evaluating impacts, diffusion mechanisms and uptake of R&D in the Australian building and construction industry. Building on a retrospective analysis of R&D trends and industry outcomes, a future-focused industry roadmap will be developed to inform R&D policies more attuned to future industry needs to improve investment effectiveness. In particular, this research will evaluate national R&D efforts to develop, test and implement advanced digital modelling technologies into the design/construction/asset management cycle. This research will build new understandings and knowledge relevant to R&D funding strategies, research team formation and management (with involvement from public and private sectors, and research and knowledge institutions), dissemination of outcomes and uptake. This is critical due to the disaggregated nature of the industry, intense competition, limited R&D investment; and new challenges (e.g. digital modelling, integrated project delivery, and the demand for packaged services). The evaluation of leading Australian and international efforts to integrate advanced digital modelling technologies into the design/construction/asset management cycle will be undertaken as one of three case studies. Employing the recently released Australian Guidelines for Digital Modelling developed with buildingSMART (International Alliance for Interoperability) and the Australian Institute of Architects, technical and business benefits across the supply chain will be highlighted as drivers for more integrated R&D efforts.

Analysing mentoring practices to understand how a preservice teacher reflects on practice to advance teaching

Mentors (cooperating classroom teachers) have a shared responsibility with universities for developing preservice teachers’ pedagogical practices, particularly towards becoming reflective practitioners. Preservice teachers need to participate actively in their own learning, by reflecting and acting on the mentor’s constructive feedback provided during planning and feedback dialogue sessions. This case study uses feedback practices outlined within a five-factor mentoring model to analyse dialogue between a mentor and her respective mentee during different stages in their school-based programs (first practicum). This investigation uses multiple data sources such as video and audio-recorded interviews, archival documents from participants such as lesson plans, reflections and reports to examine preservice teacher’s reflections and implementations of practice as a result of her mentor’s feedback (e.g., establish expectations, review lesson plans, observe teaching then provide oral and written feedback, and evaluate progress). Findings indicated that reflective thinking was more apparent when the mentor did not dominate conversations but instead asked astute pedagogical knowledge questions to facilitate the mentee’s reflections on practice.