Advance Directives and the Promotion of Autonomy: a Comparative Australian Statutory Analysis

Legislation regulating advance directives exists in six Australian jurisdictions. In all of these jurisdictions, legislation was enacted to enshrine the common law right of a competent adult to refuse treatment in advance, even if that treatment was required to sustain life. It was thought that enshrining the common law would also enshrine the principle of autonomy on which the common law was based. This article explores whether this is the case by examining the legislative restrictions that are imposed on a competent adult who wishes to complete an advance directive refusing treatment. The article reviews the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions and concludes that, while many of the legislative restrictions can be justified, many cannot as they effectively erode rather than promote the right of a competent adult to refuse treatment.

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.

Law autonomy and advance directives

The principle of autonomy underpins legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. The primacy of autonomy in this domain is recognised expressly in the case law, through judicial pronouncement, and implicitly in most Australian jurisdictions, through enactment into statute of the right to make an advance directive. This article seeks to justify autonomy as an appropriate principle for regulating advance directives and relies on three arguments: the necessity of autonomy in a liberal democracy; the primacy of autonomy in medical ethics discourse; and the uncontested importance of autonomy in the law on contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. This article also responds to key criticisms that autonomy is not an appropriate organising principle to underpin legal regulation of advance directives.

Advance directives, autonomy and the refusal of life-sustaining medical treatment

As Australian society 1s agemg, individuals are increasingly concerned about managing their future, including making decisions about the medical treatment they may wish to receive or refuse if they lose decision-making capacity. To date, there has been relatively little research into the extent to which legal regulation allows competent adults to make advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment that will bind health professionals and others when a decision needs to be made at a future time. This thesis aims to fill this gap in the research by presenting the results of research into the legal regulation of advance directives that refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. In the five papers that comprise this thesis, the law that governs this area is examined, and the ethical principle of autonomy is used to critically evaluate that law. The principal finding of this research is that the current scheme of regulation is ineffective to adequately promote the right of a competent adult to make binding advance directives about refusal of medical treatment. The research concludes that legislation should be enacted to enable individuals to complete an advance directive, only imposing restrictions to the extent that this is necessary to promote individual autonomy. The thesis first examines the principle of autonomy upon which the common law (and some statutory law) is expressed to be based, to determine whether that principle is an appropriate one to underpin regulation. 1 The finding of the research is that autonomy can be justified as an organising principle on a number of grounds: it is consistent with the values of a liberal democracy; over recent decades, it is a principle that has been even more prominent within the discipline of medical ethics; and it is the principle which underpins the legal regulation of a related topic, namely the contemporaneous refusal of medical treatment. Next, the thesis reviews the common law to determine whether it effectively achieves the goal of promoting autonomy by allowing a competent adult to make an advance directive refusing treatment that will operate if he or she later loses decision-making capacity. 2 This research finds that conunon law doctrine, as espoused by the judiciary, prioritises individual choice by recognising valid advance directives that refuse treatment as binding. However, the research also concludes that the common law, as applied by the judiciary in some cases, may not be effective to promote individual autonomy, as there have been a number of circumstances where advance directives that refuse treatment have not been followed. The thesis then examines the statutory regimes in Australia that regulate advance directives, with a focus on the regulation of advance refusals of life-sustaining medical treatment.3 This review commences with an examination ofparliamentary debates to establish why legislation was thought to be necessary. It then provides a detailed review of all of the statutory regimes, the extent to which the legislation regulates the form of advance directives, and the circumstances in which they can be completed, will operate and can be ignored by medical professionals. The research finds that legislation was enacted mainly to clarify the common law and bring a level of certainty to the field. Legislative regimes were thought to provide medical professionals with the assurance that compliance with an advance directive that refuses life-sustaining medical treatment will not expose them to legal sanction. However, the research also finds that the legislation places so many restrictions on when an advance directive refusing treatment can be made, or will operate, that they have not been successful in promoting individual autonomy.

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.

Assessment of damages for wrongful birth and consolidation in advance care directives

The recent decision of Waller v James involved a claim by the plaintiff parents for damages for wrongful birth against the defendant doctor, Dr James, a gynaecologist with a practice in infertility and IVF procedures, who had been consulted by the plaintiffs. The second plaintiff, Mr Waller suffered an inherited anti-thrombin deficiency (ATD), a condition which results in a propensity for the blood to clot, at least in adults. Dr James subsequently recommended IVF treatment. The first plaintiff, Mrs Waller became pregnant after the first cycle of IVF treatment. Her son Keeden was born on 10 August 2000 with a genetic anti-thrombin deficiency. Keeden was released from hospital on 14 August 2000. However, he was brought back to the hospital the next day with cerebral thrombosis (CSVT). As a result of the thrombosis, he suffered permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy and related disabilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was in breach of contract and his common law duty of care to the plaintiffs in failing to inform them, or cause them to be informed, of the hereditary aspects of ATD. They further alleged that, had they been properly informed, they would not have proceeded to conceive a child using the male plaintiff’s sperm and therefore avoided the harm that had befallen them. The plaintiffs claimed damages to compensate them for their losses, including psychiatric and physical injuries and the costs of having, raising and caring for Keeden. The defendant was held to be not liable in negligence by Justice Hislop of the Supreme Court of New South Wales because a finding was made on medical causation which was adverse to the plaintiffs claim.

Prevalence and predictors of advance directives in Australia

Background Advance care planning is regarded as integral to better patient outcomes yet little is known about the prevalence of advance directives in Australia. Aims To determine the prevalence of advance directives (ADs) in the Australian population. Methods A national telephone survey about estate and advance planning. Sample was stratified by age (18-45 and >45 years) and quota sampling occurred based on population size in each State and Territory. Results Fourteen percent of the Australian population has an AD. There is State variation with people from South Australia and Queensland more likely to have an AD than people from other states. Will making and particularly completion of a financial enduring power of attorney are associated with higher rates of AD completion. Standard demographic variables were of limited use in predicting whether a person would have an AD. Conclusions Despite efforts to improve uptake of advance care planning (including ADs), barriers remain. One likely trigger for completing an AD and advance care planning is undertaking a wider future planning process (e.g. making a will or financial enduring power of attorney). This presents opportunities to increase advance care planning but steps are needed to ensure that planning which occurs outside the health system is sufficiently informed and supported by health information so that it is useful in the clinical setting. Variations by State could also suggest that redesign of regulatory frameworks (such as a user-friendly and well publicised form backed by statute) may help improve uptake of ADs.

Enhancing social work interprofessional learning through across university and industry collaboration : early steps in the Advanced Health Directives Project

There is ongoing interest in strategies for enhancing the reciprocal benefit derived from social work placements by students, host agencies, and universities. There is also recognition that interprofessional learning is an important aspect of social work education,and that field education placements have a role to play in this learning. This article reports on an innovation in community-engaged learning undertaken between a major public hospital and a university, where a team of social work and law students contributed to a focused inquiry into a socio-legal practice challenge faced by the hospital, namely the use of Advanced Health Directives (AHDs).Various collaborative processes involved in the early phase of the AHD project are reflected on by participants.A preliminary evaluation supports the value of taking a systematic approach to university–industry engagement where interprofessional collaboration occurs vertically and horizontally within and across university and placement hosting agencies.

Falling through the cracks: are European directives and international conventions the panacea for freshwater nature conservation?

There are many ways of practising freshwater nature conservation: from strict legislative protection of individual species considered rare or threatened to protecting whole lakes or long stretches of rivers; from practical conservation management at a local scale to integrated catchment management at the river basin scale; and from the encouragement of better habitat management through codes of good practice to statutory control of pollution or abstraction. Whatever the mechanism, an essential pre-requisite is a way of choosing where to put the effort, especially when resources for nature conservation are severely limited. The aim of this article is to review the contribution from four specific international measures to the task of assigning priorities for conservation. The 1990s saw the introduction of two European directives (the Habitats Directive (HD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)) and one international convention (the Biodiversity Convention (CBD)) each with the potential for influencing, to a greater or lesser extent, the conservation of freshwater habitats and species. This article also discusses a much older convention – the Ramsar Convention – adopted in 1971 specifically to help tackle the conservation and management of wetlands and aquatic ecosystems. Although the authors have focused mainly on the UK, the subject is relevant to other parts of Europe and beyond. The article explores the degree to which these measures help in identifying the most important fresh waters for conservation, and asks whether or not they present the right conservation message to a wide audience.

Strengthening effectiveness of policy directives of the LVFO Council of Ministers on Lake Victoria, Uganda

Research was done to assess the dissemination and implementation by the Fisheries Department, Local Govemments and beach management units and the awareness, acceptance and compliance among fishers to the CoM Directives on management of Lake Victoria fisheries. Conducted by the National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFIRRI), the research focused on the implementation and effectiveness of measures following the LYFO Council of Ministers (CoM) Directives for improved management of the fisheries of Lake Victoria, with particular reference to the 2009 CoM Directives as a case study, it was established that many of the Directives have not been implemented. In cases where the directives were implemented, their effectiveness remains questionable. While steps were taken to disseminate and implement the Directives, there were some challenges, including the unclear legal status of the directives, limited dissemination materials and poor methods of dissemination, language barriers and inadequate resources for enforcement.

The EU Equal Treatment Directives - implementation in German labour law

This article in one of the leading German journals on labour law analyses the shortcomings of German labour law at the time (2004) in relation to the EU non-discrimination directives. It states that the reluctance to legislate against race, sex and disability discrimination must be overcome, if the demands of the directives are to be fulfilled. It also explains how those forms of discrimination could already be addressed by interpreting German labour law in line with those directives and constitutional requirements. Only in 2006 was the relevant legislation finally passed (three years later than required).