Adults who lack capacity : substitute decision-making

• Mechanisms to facilitate consent to healthcare for adults who lack capacity are necessary to ensure that these adults can lawfully receive appropriate medical treatment when needed. • In Australia, the common law plays only a limited role in this context, through its recognition of advance directives and through the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior courts. • Substitute decision-making for adults who lack capacity is facilitated primarily by guardianship and other related legislation. This legislation, which has been enacted in all Australian States and Territories, permits a range of decision-makers to make different types of healthcare decisions. • Substitute decision-makers can be appointed by the adult or by a guardianship or other tribunal. Where there is no appointed decision-maker, legislation generally empowers those close to the adult to make the relevant decision. Most Australian jurisdictions have also provided for statutory advance directives. • For the most serious of decisions, such as non-therapeutic sterilisations, consent can only be provided by a Tribunal. Other decisions can generally be made by a range of substitute decision-makers. Some treatment, such as very minor treatment or that which is needed in an emergency, can be provided without consent. • Guardianship legislation generally establishes a set of principles and/or other criteria to guide healthcare decisions. Mechanisms to resolve disputes as to who is the appropriate decision-maker and how a decision should be made have also been established.

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.

The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment : Part 1 (New South Wales)

This is the first article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in New South Wales. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals’ legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training medical professionals receive on issues such as advance directives and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals’ knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in New South Wales.

The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment : Part 2 (Queensland)

This is the second article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in Queensland, including the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals’ legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training medical professionals receive on issues such as advance health directives and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals’ knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in Queensland.

The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment : part 3 (Victoria)

This is the final article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in Victoria. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals’ legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training that medical professionals receive on issues such as refusal of treatment certificates and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals’ knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in Victoria. The article also draws together themes from the series as a whole, including conclusions about the need for more and better medical education and about law reform generally.

Enduring documents : improving the forms, improving the outcomes

Most Australian states have introduced legislation to provide for enduring documents for financial, personal and health care decision making in the event of incapacity. Since the introduction of Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) and Advance Health Directives (AHDs) in Queensland in 1998, concerns have continued to be raised by service providers, professionals and individuals about the uptake, understanding and appropriate use of these documents. In response to these concerns, the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) convened a Practical Guardianship Initiatives Working Party. This group identified the limited evidence base available to address these concerns. In 2009, a multidisciplinary research team from the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology was awarded $90,000 from the Legal Practitioners Interest on Trust Account Fund to undertake a review of the current EPA and AHD forms. The goal of the research was to gather data on the content and useability of the forms from the perspectives of a range of stakeholders, particularly those completing the EPA and AHD, witnesses of these documents, attorneys appointed under an EPA, and health professionals involved in the completion of an AHD or dealing with it in a clinical context. The researchers also sought to gather information from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) individuals as well people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups. Although the focus of the research was on the forms and the extent to which the current design, content and format represents a barrier to uptake, in the course of the research, some broader issues were identified which have an impact on the effectiveness of the EPA and AHD in achieving the goals of planning for financial and personal and health care in advance of losing capacity. The data gathered enabled the researchers to achieve the primary goal of the research: to make recommendations to improve the content and useability of the forms which hopefully will lead to an increased uptake and appropriate use of the forms. However, the researchers thought it was important not to ignore broader policy issues that were identified in the course of the research. These broader issues have been highlighted in this Report, and the researchers have responded to them in a variety of ways. For some issues, the researchers have suggested alterations that could be made to the forms to address the particular concerns. For other issues, the researchers have suggested that Government may need to take specific action such as educating the broader community with some attention to strategies that engage particular groups within communities. Other concerns raised can only be dealt with by legislative reform and, in some of these cases, the researchers have identified issues that Government may wish to consider further. We do note, however, that it is beyond the scope of this Report to recommend changes to the law. This three stage mixed methods project aimed to provide systematic evidence from a broad range of stakeholders in regard to: (i) which groups use and do not use these documents and why, (ii) the contribution of the length/complexity/format/language of the forms as barriers to their completion and/or effective use, and (iii) the issues raised by the current documents for witnesses and attorneys. Understanding and use of EPAs and AHDs were generally explored in separate but parallel processes. A purposive sampling strategy included users of the documents as principals and attorneys, and professionals, witnesses and service providers who assist others to execute or use the forms. The first component of this study built on existing knowledge using a Critical Reference Group and material provided by the DJAG Practical Guardianship Initiatives Working Party. This assisted in the development of the data collection tools for subsequent stages. The second component comprised semi-structured interviews and focus groups with a targeted sample of current users of the forms, potential users, witnesses and other professionals to provide in-depth information on critical issues. Outreach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders and individuals and workers with CALD groups ensured a broad sample of potential users of the two documents. Fifty individual interviews and three focus groups were completed. Most interviews and focus groups focused on perceptions of, and experiences with, either the EPA or the AHD form. In the interviews with Indigenous people and the CALD focus groups, however, respondents provided their perceptions and experiences of both documents. In general, these respondents had not used the forms and were responding to the documents made available in the interview or focus group. In total, seventy-seven individuals were involved in interviews or focus groups. The final component comprised on-line surveys for EPA principals, EPA attorneys, AHD principals, witnesses of EPAs and AHDs and medical practitioners with experience of AHDs as nominated and/or treating doctors. The surveys were developed from the initial component and the qualitative analysis of the interview and focus group data. A total of 116 surveys were returned from major cities and regional Queensland. The survey data was analysed descriptively for patterns and trends. It is important to note that the aim of the survey was to gain insight into issues and concerns relating to the documents and not to make generalisations to the broader population.

Autonomy versus futility? Barriers to good clinical practice in end-of-life care : a Queensland case

Findings from a Queensland coronial inquest highlight the complex clinical, ethical and legal issues that arise in end-of-life care when clinicians and family members disagree about a diagnosis of clinical futility. The tension between the law and best medical practice is highlighted in this case, as doctors are compelled to seek family consent to not commence a futile intervention. Good communication between doctors and families, as well as community and professional education, is essential to resolve tensions that can arise when there is disagreement about treatment at the end of life.

What do emergency physicians think of law?

What do emergency physicians think of law? Do they know the law? What role does it have in the practice of emergency medicine? Emergency physicians in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are being asked about these issues in a study by the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, titled ‘Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity: The role of law in medical practice’. The study aims to examine the role that law plays in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity.

Should law have a role in end-of-life care?

What do physicians think of law? Do they know the law? What role does it have in the provision of end-of-life care? Physicians in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are being asked about these issues in a study by the Queensland University of Technology entitled ‘Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity: The role of law in medical practice’. This research aims to examine the role that law plays in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity.

Withholding and withdrawal of ‘futile’ life-sustaining treatment : unilateral medical decision-making in Australia and New Zealand

This article examines the law in Australia and New Zealand that governs the withholding and withdrawal of ‘futile’ life-sustaining treatment. Although doctors have both civil and criminal law duties to treat patients, those general duties do not require the provision of treatment that is deemed to be futile. This is either because futile treatment is not in a patient’s best interests or because stopping such treatment does not breach the criminal law. This means, in the absence of a duty to treat, doctors may unilaterally withdraw or withhold treatment that is futile; consent is not required. The article then examines whether this general position has been altered by statute. It considers a range of suggested possible legislation but concludes it is likely that only Queensland’s adult guardianship legislation imposes a requirement to obtain consent to withhold or withdraw such treatment.

Enduring powers of attorney : promoting attorneys' accountability as substitute decision makers

Aim The misuse and abuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) by attorneys, particularly in relation to financial decision-making, is a growing concern. This paper explores the opportunities to enhance accountability of attorneys at the time of the execution of the document in Queensland. Method A four stage multi-method design comprised a critical reference group; semi-structured interviews with 32 principals or potential principals, attorneys and witnesses; two focus groups with service providers and a state wide survey of 76 principals, attorneys and witnesses. Results Across all methods and user groups, understanding the role and obligations of the attorney in an EPA was consistently identified as problematic. Conclusions Promoting accountability and understanding can be addressed by greater attention to the role of the attorney in the forms/ guidelines and in the structure and witnessing of the forms, increased direction about record keeping and access to appropriate advice and support.

The difficulty of establishing causation in medical negligence cases : two recent Australian decisions

This editorial on health and guardianship law provides an overview of the causation issues that precluded the recovery of two medical negligence claims in the cases of Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19 and Waller v James [2013] NSWSC 497.

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.

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.

Adults who lack capacity : substitute decision-making

• Mechanisms to facilitate consent to healthcare for adults who lack capacity are necessary to ensure that these adults can lawfully receive appropriate medical treatment when needed. • In Australia, the common law plays only a limited role in this context, through its recognition of advance directives and through the parens patriae jurisdiction of superior courts. • Substitute decision-making for adults who lack capacity is facilitated primarily by guardianship and other related legislation. This legislation, which has been enacted in all Australian States and Territories, permits a range of decision-makers to make different types of healthcare decisions. • Substitute decision-makers can be appointed by the adult or by a guardianship or other tribunal. Where there is no appointed decision-maker, legislation generally empowers those close to the adult to make the relevant decision. Most Australian jurisdictions have also provided for statutory advance directives. • For the most serious of decisions, such as non-therapeutic sterilisations, consent can only be provided by a tribunal. Other decisions can generally be made by a range of substitute decision-makers. Some treatment, such as very minor treatment or that which is needed in an emergency, can be provided without consent. • Guardianship legislation generally establishes a set of principles and/or other criteria to guide healthcare decisions. Mechanisms have also been established to resolve disputes as to who is the appropriate decision-maker and how a decision should be made.