Lifting the lifegiving dollar : case samples of creative practice in health and medical research philanthropy

This study aims to stimulate thought, debate and action for change on this question of more vigorous philanthropic funding of Australian health and medical research (HMR). It sharpens the argument with some facts and ideas about HMR funding from overseas sources. It also reports informed opinions from those working, giving and innovating in this area. It pinpoints the range of attitudes to HMR giving, both positive and negative. The study includes some aspects of Government funding as part of the equation, viewing Government as major HMR givers, with particular ability to partner, leverage and create incentives. Stimulating new philanthropy takes active outreach. The opportunity to build more dialogue between the HMR industry and the wider community is timely given the ‘licence to practice’ issues and questioned trust that applies currently somewhat both to science and to the charitable sector. This interest in improving HMR philanthropy also coincides with the launch last year by the Federal Government of Nonprofit Australia Limited (NAL), a group currently assessing infrastructure improvements to the charitable sector. History suggests no one will create this change if Research Australia does not. However, interest in change exists in various quarters. For Research Australia to successfully change the culture of Australian HMR giving, the process will drive the outcomes. Obviously stakeholder buy-in and partners will be needed and the ultimate blueprint for greater philanthropic HMR funding here will not be this document. Instead it will be the one that wears the handprint and ‘mindprint’ of the many architects and implementers interested in promoting HMR philanthropy, from philanthropists to nonprofit peaks to government policy arms. As the African proverb says, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone; but if you want to go far, go with others’.

The public sector’s perspective on procuring public works projects : comparing the views of practitioners in Hong Kong and Australia

Hong Kong has been one of the early jurisdictions to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) model for delivering large public infrastructure projects. The development of this procurement approach in Hong Kong has followed an intricate path. As such, it is believed that there are a number of areas which are interesting to unveil. As part of a comprehensive research study looking at implementing PPPs, interviews with experienced local industrial practitioners from the public sector were conducted to realize their perspective on the topic of procuring public works projects. Amongst these interviews, fourteen were launched government officials and advisers. The interview findings show that the majority of the Hong Kong and Australian interviewees had previously conducted some kind of research in the field of PPP. Both groups of interviewees agreed that “PPPs gain private sector’s added efficiency/expertise/management skills” when compared to projects procured traditionally. Also, both groups of interviewees felt that projects best suited to use PPP are those that have an “Economic business case”. The interviewees believed that “Contractor’s performance” could be used as key performance indicators for PPP projects. A large number of critical success factors were identified by the interviewees for PPP projects; two of these were similar for both groups of interviewees. These included “Project objectives well defined” and “Partnership spirit/commitment/trust”. Finally it was found that in-house guidance materials were more common in the organizations of the Australian interviewees compared to the Hong Kong ones. This paper studies the views of the public sector towards the topic of PPPs in Hong Kong and Australia, which helps to answer some of the queries that both academics and the private sector in these jurisdictions are keen to know. As a result the private sector can be more prepared when negotiating with the public sector and realise their needs better, academics on the other hand are provided a wider perspective of this topic benefiting the research industry at large.

QUT Medical Engineering Research Facility (MERF) annual report 2009

DIRECTOR’S OVERVIEW by Professor Mark Pearcy This report for 2009 is the first full year report for MERF. The development of our activities in 2009 has been remarkable and is testament to the commitment of the staff to the vision of MERF as a premier training and research facility. From the beginnings in 2003, when a need was identified for the provision of specialist research and training facilities to enable close collaboration between researchers and clinicians, to the realisation of the vision in 2009 has been an amazing journey. However, we have learnt that there is much more that can be achieved and the emphasis will be on working with the university, government and external partners to realise the full potential of MERF by further development of the Facility. In 2009 we conducted 28 workshops in the Anatomical and Surgical Skills Laboratory providing training for surgeons in the latest techniques. This was an excellent achievement for the first full year as our reputation for delivering first class facilities and support grows. The highlight, perhaps, was a course run via our video link by a surgeon in the USA directing the participants in MERF. In addition, we have continued to run a small number of workshops in the operating theatre and this promises to be an avenue that will be of growing interest. Final approval was granted for the QUT Body Bequest Program late in 2009 following the granting of an Anatomical Accepting Licence. This will enable us to expand our capabilities by provide better material for the workshops. The QUT Body Bequest Program will be launched early in 2010. The Biological Research Facility (BRF) conducted over 270 procedures in 2009. This is a wonderful achievement considering less then 40 were performed in 2008. The staff of the BRF worked very hard to improve the state of the old animal house and this resulted in approval for expanded use by the ethics committees of both QUT and the University of Queensland. An external agency conducted an Occupational Health and Safety Audit of MERF in 2009. While there were a number of small issues that require attention, the auditor congratulated the staff of MERF on achieving a good result, particularly for such an early stage in the development of MERF. The journey from commissioning of MERF in 2008 to the full implementation of its activities in 2009 has demonstrated the potential of this facility and 2010 will be an exciting year as its activities are recognised and further expanded building development is pursued.

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.

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.

Securing medical research data with a rights management system

We propose a digital rights management approach for sharing electronic health records for research purposes and argue advantages of the approach. We give an outline of our implementation, discuss challenges that we faced and future directions.

Obesity

It is now widely accepted that there are important links between inactivity and lifestyle-related chronic diseases, and that exercise can bring tangible therapeutic benefits to people with long-term chronic conditions. Exercise and Chronic Disease: An Evidence-Based Approach offers the most up-to-date survey currently available of the scientific and clinical evidence underlying the effects of exercise in relation to functional outcomes, disease-specific health-related outcomes and quality of life in patients with chronic disease conditions. Drawing on data from randomized controlled trials and observational evidence, and written by a team of leading international researchers and medical and health practitioners, the book explores the evidence across a wide range of chronic diseases, including: