The late discovery of adoptive and donor insemination offspring status : ethical implications for conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle

Late discovery is a term used to describe the experience of discovering the truth of one’s genetic origins as an adult. Following discovery, late discoverers face a lack of recognition and acknowledgment of their concerns from family, friends, community and institutions. They experience pain, anger, loss, grief and frustration. This presentation shares the findings of the first qualitative study of both late discovery of adoptive and donor insemination offspring (heterosexual couple use only) experiences. It is also the first study of late discovery experiences undertaken from an ethical perspective. While this study recruited new participants, it also included an ethical re-analysis of existing late discovery accounts across both practices. The findings of this study (a) draws links between past adoption and current donor insemination (heterosexual couple only) practices, (b) reveals that late discoverers are demanding acknowledgment and recognition of the particularity of their experiences, and (c) offers insights into conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle. These insights derive from the lived experiences of those whose biological and social worlds have been sundered and secrecy and denial of difference used to conceal this. It suggests that acknowledging the equal moral status of the child may be useful in strengthening conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle. This equal moral status involves ensuring that personal autonomy and the ability to exercise free will is protected; that the integrity of the relationships of trust expected and demanded between parent/s and children is defended and supported; and that equal access to normative socio-cultural practices, that is; non-fictionalised birth certificates and open records, is guaranteed.

The Best interests duty in the future of financial advice reforms : striking a balance between certainty and flexibility

Presentation delivered to the Australian and New Zealand Consumer Law Roundtable held at the University of Melbourne Law School on Friday, 16 November 2012. The paper covers the background to the 'Future of Financial Advice' reforms and their context. In addition to this the scope of best interests duty is discussed. The paper concludes with an assessment of the likely effectives of best interest duty as a consumer protection measure.

Is providing elective ventilation in the best interests of potential donors?

In this paper, we examine the lawfulness of a proposal to provide elective ventilation to incompetent patients who are potential organ donors. Under the current legal framework, this depends on whether the best interests test could be satisfied. It might be argued that, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) (and the common law) makes it clear that the best interests test is not confined to the patient's clinical interests, but extends to include the individual's own values, wishes and beliefs, the proposal will be in the patient's best interests. We reject this claim. We argue that, as things currently stand, the proposal could not lawfully be justified as a blanket proposition by reference to the best interests test. Accordingly, a modification of the law would be necessary to render the proposal lawful. We conclude with a suggestion about how that could be achieved.

The effectiveness of the best interests duty : enhancing consumer protection?

This article considers the uncertainty surrounding the scope of the best interests duty which forms part of the Government’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms. It is likely to be many years before the courts can interpret and clarify the content of the duty. Under the new regime, the provision of personal financial advice will be made more difficult, complex and costly and these costs will be passed on to consumers. The article also considers whether there will still be scope for delivering standardized, non-tailored advice in the light of the best interests duty. In the pas standardized advice has allowed large amounts of low-level, generic advice to be delivered very efficiently. In order to avoid breaching the best interests duty standardized advice should only be used rarely, and only after a careful assessment has been made to ensure that a standardized approach is appropriate.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests : Australian judicial deliberations

•Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. •A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's “best interests”. Yet what this term means is contested. •There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. •Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

Optimal monitoring in family-owned companies? Evidence from Asia

Manuscript Type: Empirical Research Issue: We propose that high levels of monitoring are not always in the best interests of minority shareholders. In family-owned companies the optimal level of board monitoring required by minority shareholders is expected to be lower than that of other companies. This is because the relative benefits and costs of monitoring are different in family-owned companies. Research Findings: At moderate levels of board monitoring, we find concave relationships between board monitoring variables and firm performance for family-owned companies but not for other companies. The optimal level of board monitoring for our sample of Asian family-owned companies equates to board independence of 38%, separation of the Chairman and CEO positions and establishment of audit and remuneration committees. Additional testing shows that the optimal level of board monitoring is sensitive to the magnitude of the agency conflict between the family group and minority shareholders and the presence of substitute monitoring. Practitioner/Policy Implications: For policymakers, the results show that more monitoring is not always in the best interests of minority shareholders. Therefore, it may be inappropriate for regulators to advise all companies to follow the same set of corporate governance guidelines. However, our results also indicate that the board governance practices of family-owned companies are still well below the identified optimal levels. Keywords: Corporate Governance, Board Independence, Board of Directors, Family Firms, Monitoring.

Evaluation of contextual influences on the medication administration practice of paediatric nurses

Aim. This paper is a report of a study conducted to explore the impact of preidentified contextual themes (related to work environment and socialization) on nursing medication practice. Background. Medication administration is a complex aspect of paediatric nursing and an important component of day-to-day nursing practice. Many attempts are being made to improve patient safety, but many errors remain. Identifying and understanding factors that influence medication administration errors are of utmost importance. Method. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of 278 paediatric nurses from the emergency department, intensive care unit and medical and surgical wards of an Australian tertiary paediatric hospital in 2004. The response rate was 67%. Result. Contextual influences were important in determining how closely medication policy was followed. Completed questionnaires were returned by 185 nurses (67%). Younger nurses aged <34 years thought that their medication administration practice could be influenced by the person with whom they checked the drugs (P = 0·001), and that there were daily circumstances when it was acceptable not to adhere strictly to medication policy (P < 0·001), including choosing between following policy and acting in the best interests of the child (P = 0·002). Senior nurses agreed that senior staff dictate acceptable levels of medication policy adherence through role modelling (P = 0·01). Less experienced nurses reported greater confidence with computer literacy (P < 0·001). Conclusions. Organizations need to employ multidisciplinary education programmes to promote universal understanding of, and adherence to, medication policies. Skill mix should be closely monitored to ensure adequate support for new and junior staff.

Listening to late discovery adoption and donor offspring stories : adoption, ethics and implications for contemporary donor insemination practices

For most of the 20th Century a ‘closed’ system of adoption was practised throughout Australia and other modern Western societies. This ‘closed’ system was characterised by sealed records; amended birth certificates to conceal the adoption, and prohibited contact with all biological family. Despite claims that these measures protected these children from the taint of illegitimacy the central motivations were far more complex, involving a desire to protect couples from the stigma of infertility and to provide a socially acceptable family structure (Triseliotis, Feast, & Kyle, 2005; Marshall & McDonald, 2001). From the 1960s significant evidence began to emerge that many adopted children and adults were experiencing higher incidences of psychological difficulties, characterised by problems with psychological adjustment, building self-esteem and forming a secure personal identity. These difficulties became grouped under the term ‘genealogical bewilderment’. As a result, new policies and practices were introduced to try to place the best interests of the child at the forefront. These changes reflected new understandings of adoption; as not only an individual process but also as a social and relational process that continues throughout life. Secrecy and the withholding of birth information are now prohibited in the overwhelming majority of all domestic adoptions processed in Australia (Marshall & McDonald, 2001). One little known consequence of this ‘closed’ system of adoption was the significant number of children who were never told of their adoptive status. As a consequence, some have discovered or had this information disclosed to them, as adults. The first study that looked at the late discovery of genetic origins experiences was conducted by the Post Adoption Resource Centre in New South Wales in 1999. This report found that the participants in their study expressed feelings of disbelief, confusion, anger, sorrow and loss. Further, the majority of participants continued to struggle with issues arising from this intentional concealment of their genetic origins (Perl & Markham, 1999). A second and more recent study (Passmore, Feeney & Foulstone, 2007) looked at the issue of secrecy in adoptive families as part of a broader study of 144 adult adoptees. This study found that secrecy and/or lies or misinformation on the part of adoptive parents had negative effects on both personal identity and relationships with others. The authors noted that those adoptees who found out about their adoption as adults were ‘especially likely to feel a sense of betrayal’ (p.4). Over recent years, stories of secrecy and late discovery have also started to emerge from sperm donor conceived adults (Spencer, 2007; Turner & Coyle, 2000). Current research evidence shows that although a majority of couples during the donor assisted conception process indicate that they intend to tell the offspring about their origins, as many as two-thirds or more of couples continue to withhold this information from their children (Akker, 2006; Gottlieb, A. McWhinnie, 2001; Salter-Ling, Hunter, & Glover, 2001). Why do they keep this secret? Infertility involves a range of complex factors that are often left unresolved or poorly understood by those choosing insemination by donor as a form of family building (Schaffer, J. A., & Diamond, R., 1993). These factors may only impact after the child is born, when resemblance talk becomes most pronounced. Resemblance talk is an accepted form of public discourse and a social convention that legitimises the child as part of the family and is part of the process of constructing the child’s identity within the family. Couples tend to become focused on resemblance as this is where they feel most vulnerable, and the lack of resemblance to the parenting father may trigger his sense of loss (Becker, Butler, & Nachtigall, 2005).

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.

Aboriginal public health and education : has it made a difference in practice?

Over the years, public health in relation to Australian Aboriginal people has involved many individuals and groups including health professionals, governments, politicians, special interest groups and corporate organisations. Since colonisation commenced until the1980s, public health relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was not necessarily in the best interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but rather in the interests of the non-Aboriginal population. The attention that was paid focussed more generally around the subject of reproduction and issues of prostitution, exploitation, abuse and venereal diseases (Kidd, 1997). Since the late 1980s there has been a shift in the broader public health agenda (see Baum, 1998) along with public health in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (NHMRC, 2003). This has been coupled with increasing calls to develop appropriate tertiary curriculum and to educate, train, and employ more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal people in public health (Anderson et al., 2004; Genat, 2007; PHERP, 2008a, 2008b). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been engaged in public health in ways in which they are in a position to influence the public health agenda (Anderson 2004; 2008; Anderson et al., 2004; NATSIHC, 2003). There have been numerous projects, programs and strategies that have sought to develop the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Public Health workforce (AHMAC, 2002; Oldenburg et al., 2005; SCATSIH, 2002). In recent times the Aboriginal community controlled health sector has joined forces with other peak bodies and governments to find solutions and strategies to improve the health outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (NACCHO & Oxfam, 2007). This case study chapter will not address these broader activities. Instead it will explore the activities and roles of staff within the Public Health and Research Unit (PHRU) at the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO). It will focus on their experiences with education institutions, their work in public health and their thoughts on gaps and where improvements can be made in public health, research and education. What will be demonstrated is the diversity of education qualifications and experience. What will also be reflected is how people work within public health on a daily basis to enact change for equity in health and contribute to the improvement of future health outcomes of the Victorian Aboriginal community.

Surrogacy and IVF

While in the past surrogacy was illegal in Queensland, since June 2010 the Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) (“the Act”) has made altruistic surrogacy arrangements lawful in Queensland. In addition, it provides a mechanism for transfer of legal parentage from the surrogate to the person(s) wishing to have a child (the intended parent(s)). Commercial surrogacy – where a payment, reward or other material benefit of advantage (other than the reimbursement of the “birth mother’s surrogacy costs” (s11 of the Act) is made for entering into a surrogacy arrangement – remains unlawful. The paramount guiding principle underpinning the Act is that of the wellbeing and best interests of a child born as a result of surrogacy. The Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld) allows a single person or a couple (heterosexual or same sex couples) to enter into an agreement with a woman, and her partner (if she has one), to become pregnant with the intention that the child will be relinquished to the intended parent(s). The Act also provides a mechanism for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised as the parent(s) of the child. In order for the intended parent(s) to be legally recognised (via a parentage order, discussed below) it must be shown that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into when all the parties were over 25 years of age and the intended parent(s) are male or, in a heterosexual or lesbian couple the female(s) are not likely to conceive or give birth to a healthy child due to medical reasons. The arrangement must be entered into before the surrogate becomes pregnant and all parties must have obtained independent legal advice and counselling about the proposed arrangement, and evidence of this is required at the time a parentage order is applied for. For the purposes of the Act it does not matter how the surrogate conceives the child or if the child is genetically related to the parties. During the period of the pregnancy, the surrogate has the right to manage her pregnancy in the way she wishes. Although she cannot profit from acting as a surrogate, section 11 states that she is entitled to surrogacy costs. These include, for example, reasonable medical costs related to pregnancy and the birth of the child; counselling and legal costs associated with the surrogacy arrangement; actual lost earnings because of leave taken during pregnancy or following birth and any reasonable travel expenses incurred. The surrogacy arrangement itself is not legally enforceable; however, obligations to pay a surrogate’s surrogacy costs are enforceable unless she chooses not to relinquish the child to the intending parents. While the Act does not specifically deal with the situation where the surrogate decides she is unprepared to relinquish the child to the intended parents, there have been examples where parties have entered into these kinds of arrangements, and the arrangements have become difficult. For example, the Family Court case of Re Evelyn (1998) FLC 92–807 involved a child born to a surrogate mother who decided not to surrender her. The child was the genetic child of the surrogate mother and the husband of the couple who had contracted with the surrogate mother. Both sets of parents brought proceedings in the court, seeking that the child live with them. In hearing the application, the court applied the paramount principle of the ‘best interests of the child’. The court made clear that there is no presumption in favour of the birth mother, although in this case the court found that the child may be better placed with the surrogate mother’s family.