Knowing a donor and identifying as one : determinants of people's willingness for related and anonymous living donation in Australia

While LRD (living donation to a genetically/emotionally related recipient) is well established in Australia, LAD (living anonymous donation to a stranger) is rare. Given the increasing use of LAD overseas, Australia may likely follow suit. Understanding the determinants of people’s willingness for LAD is essential but infrequently studied in Australia. Consequently, we compared the determinants of people’s LRD and LAD willingness, and assessed whether these determinants differed according to type of living donation. We surveyed 487 health students about their LRD and LAD willingness, attitudes, identity, prior experience with blood and organ donation, deceased donation preference, and demographics. We used Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to identify the determinants of willingness for LRD and LAD and paired sample t-tests to examine differences in LRD and LAD attitudes, identity, and willingness. Mean differences in willingness (LRD 5.93, LAD 3.92), attitudes (LRD 6.43, LAD 5.53), and identity (LRD 5.69, LAD 3.58) were statistically significant. Revised SEM models provided a good fit to the data (LRD: x2 (41) = 67.67, p = 0.005, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04; LAD: x2 (40) = 79.64, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.05) and explained 45% and 54% of the variation in LRD and LAD willingness, respectively. Four common determinants of LRD and LAD willingness emerged: identity, attitude, past blood donation, and knowing a deceased donor. Religious affiliation and deceased donation preference predicted LAD willingness also. Identifying similarities and differences in these determinants can inform future efforts aimed at understanding people’s LRD and LAD willingness and the evaluation of potential living donor motives. Notably, this study highlights the importance of people’s identification as a living donor as a motive underlying their willingness to donate their organs while living.

How do level of experience, purpose for riding, and preference for facilities affect location of riding?

Characteristics of the road infrastructure affect both the popularity of bicycling and its safety, but comparisons of the safety performance of infrastructure may be confounded by differences in the profiles of cyclists who use them. Data from a survey of 2,532 adult bicycle riders in Queensland, Australia, demonstrated that many riders rode reluctantly in particular locations and that preference for riding location was influenced by degree of experience and riding purpose. Most riders rode most often and furthest per week on urban roads, but approximately one-third of all riders (and more new riders) rode there reluctantly. Almost two-thirds of riders rode on bicycle paths, most by choice, not reluctantly. New riders rode proportionally more on bicycle paths, but continuing riders rode further in absolute terms. Utilitarian riders were more likely to ride on bicycle paths than social and fitness riders and almost all of this riding was by choice. Fitness riders were more reluctant in their use of bicycle paths, but still most of their use was by choice. One-third of the respondents reported riding on the sidewalk (legal in Queensland), with approximately two-thirds doing so reluctantly. The frequency and distance ridden on the sidewalk was less than for urban roads and bicycle paths. Sidewalks and bicycle paths were important facilities for both inexperienced and experienced riders and for utilitarian riding, especially when urban roads were considered a poor choice for cycling.

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis from which to start an informed and rational dialogue in Australia about voluntary euthanasia (VE) and assisted suicide (AS). It does this by seeking to chart the broad landscape of issues that can be raised as relevant to how this conduct should be regulated by the law. It is not our purpose to persuade. Rather, we have attempted to address the issues as neutrally as possible and to canvass both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. We hope that this exercise places the reader in a position to consider the question posed by this paper: How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide? In line with the approach taken in the paper, this question does not take sides in the debate. It simply asks how VE and AS should be regulated, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve regulation. We begin by considering the wider legal framework that governs end of life decision-making. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment that result in a person’s death can be lawful. This could be because, for example, a competent adult refuses such treatment. Alternatively, stopping or not providing treatment can be lawful when it is no longer in a person’s best interests to receive it. The law also recognises that appropriate palliative care should not attract criminal responsibility. By contrast, VE and AS are unlawful in Australia and could lead to prosecution for crimes such as murder, manslaughter or aiding and abetting suicide. But this is not to say that such conduct does not occur in practice. Indeed, there is a body of evidence that VE and AS occur in Australia, despite them being unlawful. There have been repeated efforts to change the law in this country, mainly by the minor political parties. However, apart from a brief period when VE and AS was lawful in the Northern Territory, these attempts to reform the law have been unsuccessful. The position is different in a small but increasing number of jurisdictions overseas where such conduct is lawful. The most well known is the Netherlands but there are also statutory regimes that regulate VE and/or AS in Belgium and Luxembourg in Europe, and Oregon and Washington in the United States. A feature of these legislative models is that they incorporate review or oversight processes that enable the collection of data about how the law is being used. As a result, there is a significant body of evidence that is available for consideration to assess the operation of the law in these jurisdictions and some of this is considered briefly here. Assisting a suicide, if done for selfless motives, is also legal in Switzerland, and this has resulted in what has been referred to as ‘euthanasia tourism’. This model is also considered. The paper also identifies the major arguments in favour of, and against, legalisation of VE and AS. Arguments often advanced in favour of law reform include respect for autonomy, that public opinion favours reform, and that the current law is incoherent and discriminatory. Key arguments against legalising VE and AS point to the sanctity of life, concerns about the adequacy and effectiveness of safeguards, and a ‘slippery slope’ that will allow euthanasia to occur for minors or for adults where it is not voluntary. We have also attempted to step beyond these well trodden and often rehearsed cases ‘for and against’. To this end, we have identified some ethical values that might span both sides of the debate and perhaps be the subject of wider consensus. We then outline a framework for considering the issue of how Australia should regulate VE and AS. We begin by asking whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are). If VE and AS should continue to attract criminal responsibility, the next step is to enquire whether the law should punish such conduct more or less than is presently the case, or whether the law should stay the same. If a change is favoured as to how the criminal law punishes VE and AS, options considered include sentencing reform, creating context-specific offences or developing prosecutorial guidelines for how the criminal justice system deals with these issues. If VE and AS should not be criminal acts, then questions arise as to how and when they should be permitted and regulated. Possible elements of any reform model include: ensuring decision-making is competent and voluntary; ascertaining a person’s eligibility to utilise the regime, for example, whether it depends on him or her having a terminal illness or experiencing pain and suffering; and setting out processes for how any decision must be made and evidenced. Options to bring about decriminalisation include challenging the validity of laws that make VE and AS unlawful, recognising a defence to criminal prosecution, or creating a statutory framework to regulate the practice. We conclude the paper where we started: with a call for rational and informed consideration of a difficult and sensitive issue. How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

This paper invites consideration of how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have attempted to pose this question as neutrally as possible, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve decisions about regulation. We begin by charting the wider field of law at the end of life, before considering the repeated, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at law reform in Australia. The situation in Australia is contrasted with permissive jurisdictions overseas where voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are lawful. We consider the arguments for and against legalisation of such conduct along with the available empirical evidence as to what happens in practice both in Australia and overseas. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for deliberating on how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We ask a threshold question of whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are), the answer to which then leads to a range of possible regulatory options.

Prosecutorial guidelines for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide : autonomy, public confidence and high quality decision-making

This article proposes offence-specific guidelines for how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in cases of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Similar guidelines have been produced in England and Wales but we consider them to be deficient in a number of respects, including that they lack a set of coherent guiding principles. In light of these concerns, we outline an approach to constructing alternative guidelines that begins with identifying three guiding principles that we argue are appropriate for this purpose: respect for autonomy, the need for high quality prosecutorial decision-making and the importance of public confidence in that decision-making.

A multicultural nursing workforce and cultural perspectives in Saudi Arabia : an overview

This paper provides an overview of the cultural perspectives and practices in Saudi Arabia that could help expatriate health care providers to understand Saudi culture and enhance cultural competence. The healthcare system in Gulf countries, particularly, Saudi Arabia, is mainly staffed by expatriate nurses, who account for 67.7% of the total number of nurses. This gives rise to a multicultural environment in the hospital, where people of different cultures interact with each other and take care of Saudi patients who are from the dominant culture. In this scenario, a lack of knowledge of Saudi culture among nurses can lead to cultural conflicts and misunderstanding of some of the behaviors and practices of the indigenous Saudi people. Culture is a complex notion; however, being aware of cultural differences and having cultural knowledge can help people to interact safely. Educating expatriate nurses about the cultural heritage of the Saudi people, which is mainly influenced by Islamic teachings, is important to increase cultural harmony.

Nursing communication and casualisation of the nursing workforce.

Nurse researchers in Queensland •will undertake an ethnographic study of a health care facUity in order to explore the relationship between the increasing casualisation of the nursing workforce and the communication needs of full time and casual nurses.