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.

Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from children

Difficult questions regarding the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining medical treatment can arise in relation to children (being those under 18 years old). This editorial considers some of the legal principles that are relevant in such cases in Australia, particularly Queensland.

The Treatment of Neonatal Seizures: A Critical Review of the Evidence

In a critical review of the literature to assess the efficacy of monotherapy and subsequent combinant anticonvulsant therapy in the treatment of neonatal seizures, four studies were examined; three randomised control trials and one retrospective cohort study. Each study used phenobarbital for monotherapy with doses reaching a maximum of 40mg/kg. Anticonvulsant drugs used in conjunction with phenobarbitone for combinant therapy included midazolam, clonazepam, lorazepam, phenytoin and lignocaine. Each study used an electroencephalograph for seizure diagnosis and neonatal monitoring when determining therapy efficacy and final outcome assessments. Collectively the studies suggest neither monotherapy nor combinant therapy are entirely effective in seizure control. Monotherapy demonstrated a 29% - 50% success rate for complete seizure control whereas combinant therapy administered after the failure of monotherapy demonstrated a success rate of 43% - 100%. When these trials were combined the overall success for monotherapy was 44% (n = 34/78) and for combinant therapy 72% ( n = 56/78). Though the evidence was inconclusive, it would appear that combinant therapy is of greater benefit to infants unresponsive to monotherapy. Further research such as multi-site randomised controlled trials using standardised criteria and data collection are required within this specialised area.

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.

Children, Obesity and Exercise: Prevention, Treatment and Management of Childhood and Adolescent Obesity

Throughout the developed world there is an increasing prevalence of childhood obesity. Because of this increase, and awareness of the risks to long term health that childhood obesity presents, the phenomena is now described by many as a global epidemic. Children, Obesity and Exercise provides sport, exercise and medicine students and professionals with an accessible and practical guide to understanding and managing childhood and adolescent obesity. It covers: overweight, obesity and body composition; physical activity, growth and development; psycho-social aspects of childhood obesity; physical activity behaviours; eating behaviours; measuring childrens behaviour; interventions for prevention and management of childhood obesity. Children, Obesity and Exercise addresses the need for authoritative advice and innovative approaches to the prevention and management of this chronic problem.

Interactions between energy intake and expenditure in the development and treatment of obesity.

Summary There are four interactions to consider between energy intake (EI) and energy expenditure (EE) in the development and treatment of obesity. (1) Does sedentariness alter levels of EI or subsequent EE? and (2) Do high levels of EI alter physical activity or exercise? (3) Do exercise-induced increases in EE drive EI upwards and undermine dietary approaches to weight management and (4) Do low levels of EI elevate or decrease EE? There is little evidence that sedentariness alters levels of EI. This lack of cross-talk between altered EE and EI appears to promote a positive EB. Lifestyle studies also suggest that a sedentary routine actually offers the opportunity for over-consumption. Substantive changes in non exercise activity thermogenesis are feasible, but not clearly demonstrated. Cross talk between elevated EE and EI is initially too weak and takes too long to activate, to seriously threaten dietary approaches to weight management. It appears that substantial fat loss is possible before intake begins to track a sustained elevation of EE. There is more evidence that low levels of EI does lower physical activity levels, in relatively lean men under conditions of acute or prolonged semi-starvation and in dieting obese subjects. During altered EB there are a number of small but significant changes in the components of EE, including (i) sleeping and basal metabolic rate, (ii) energy cost of weight change alters as weight is gained or lost, (iii) exercise efficiency, (iv) energy cost of weight bearing activities, (v) during substantive overfeeding diet composition (fat versus carbohydrate) will influence the energy cost of nutrient storage by ~ 15%. The responses (i-v) above are all “obligatory” responses. Altered EB can also stimulate facultative behavioural responses, as a consequence of cross-talk between EI and EE. Altered EB will lead to changes in the mode duration and intensity of physical activities. Feeding behaviour can also change. The degree of inter-individual variability in these responses will define the scope within which various mechanisms of EB compensation can operate. The relative importance of “obligatory” versus facultative, behavioural responses -as components of EB control- need to be defined.