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.

Palliative care challenges : implications for nurses' practice in renal settings

The very act of withdrawing dialysis places renal nurses in a unique practice setting requiring a sudden shift in care delivery from one of providing Ife-sustaining, active treatment to that of palliation. The impact of this act on the renal nurse remains largely invisible. Minimal research has been conducted that explores the significant issues and challenges that exist for renal nurses in the delivery of palliation following withdrawal of dialysis treatment. This paper attempts to highlight the issues and challenges that do exist for renal nurses in providing palliation and the subsequent lack of available research knowledge to inform practice in the renal setting. It recommends further research be conducted into the renal setting so as to inform the development of appropriate education to support renal nurses practice in the future.

Disseminated M. avium complex infection in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study: declining incidence, improved prognosis and discontinuation of maintenance therapy.

Introduction of potent antiretroviral combination therapy (ART) has reduced overall morbidity and mortality amongst HIV-infected adults. Some prophylactic regimes against opportunistic infections can be discontinued in patients under successful ART. (1) The influence of the availability of ART on incidence and mortality of disseminated M. avium Complex infection (MAC). (2) The safety of discontinuation of maintenance therapy against MAC in patients on ART. The Swiss HIV-Cohort Study, a prospective multicentre study of HIV-infected adults. Patients with a nadir CD4 count below 50 cells/mm3 were considered at risk for MAC and contributed to total follow-up time for calculating the incidence. Survival analysis was performed by using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. Safety of discontinuation of maintenance therapy was evaluated by review of the medical notes. 398 patients were diagnosed with MAC from 1990 to 1999. 350 had a previous CD4 count below 50 cells/mm3. A total of 3208 patients had a nadir CD4 count of less than 50 cells/mm3 during the study period and contributed to a total follow-up of 6004 person-years. The incidence over the whole study period was 5.8 events per 100 person-years. In the time period of available ART the incidence of MAC was significantly reduced (1.4 versus 8.8 events per 100 person-years, p < 0.001). Being diagnosed after 1995 was the most powerful predictor of better survival (adjusted hazard ratio for death: 0.27; p < 0.001). None of 24 patients discontinuing maintenance therapy while on ART experienced recurrence of MAC during a total follow-up of 56.6 person-years (upper 95% confidence limit 5.3 per 100 person-years). Introducing ART has markedly reduced the risk of MAC for HIV-infected individuals with a history of very low CD4 counts. Survival after diagnosis of MAC has improved after ART became available. In patients responding to ART, discontinuation of maintenance therapy against M. avium may be safe.

Predicting the onset of psychosis in patients at clinical high risk: practical guide to probabilistic prognostic reasoning

Prediction of psychosis in patients at clinical high risk (CHR) has become a mainstream focus of clinical and research interest worldwide. When using CHR instruments for clinical purposes, the predicted outcome is but only a probability; and, consequently, any therapeutic action following the assessment is based on probabilistic prognostic reasoning. Yet, probabilistic reasoning makes considerable demands on the clinicians. We provide here a scholarly practical guide summarising the key concepts to support clinicians with probabilistic prognostic reasoning in the CHR state. We review risk or cumulative incidence of psychosis in, person-time rate of psychosis, Kaplan-Meier estimates of psychosis risk, measures of prognostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity in receiver operator characteristic curves, positive and negative predictive values, Bayes’ theorem, likelihood ratios, potentials and limits of real-life applications of prognostic probabilistic reasoning in the CHR state. Understanding basic measures used for prognostic probabilistic reasoning is a prerequisite for successfully implementing the early detection and prevention of psychosis in clinical practice. Future refinement of these measures for CHR patients may actually influence risk management, especially as regards initiating or withholding treatment.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment : criminal responsibility for established medical practice?

The law recognises the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment even if this will lead to death. Guardianship and other legislation also facilitates the making of decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in certain circumstances. Despite this apparent endorsement that such decisions can be lawful, doubts have been raised in Queensland about whether decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment would contravene the criminal law, and particularly the duty imposed by the Criminal Code (Qld) to provide the “necessaries of life”. This article considers this tension in the law and examines various arguments that might allow for such decisions to be made lawfully. It ultimately concludes, however, that criminal responsibility may still arise and so reform is needed.

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.

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.

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.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

Cutting the Gordian knot of futility : a case for law reform on unilateral withholding and withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment

In this paper, we propose law reform with respect to the unilateral withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatment in Australia and New Zealand. That is, where a doctor withholds or withdraws potentially life-sustaining treatment without consent from a patient or a patient’s substitute decision-maker (where the patient lacks capacity), or authorisation from a court or tribunal, or by operation of a statute or justifiable government or institutional policy. Our proposal is grounded in the core values that do (or should) underpin a regulatory framework on an issue such as this; these values are drawn from existing commitments made by Australia and New Zealand through legislation, the common law, and conventions and treaties. It is also grounded in a critical review of the law on unilateral withholding and withdrawal as well as the legal context within which this issue sits in Australasia. We argue that the current law is inconsistent with the core values and develop a proposal for a legal response to this issue that more closely aligns with the core values it is supposed to serve.

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 all 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.

Doctors' knowledge of the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment

Objectives To examine the level of knowledge of doctors about the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack decision-making capacity, and factors associated with a higher level of knowledge. Design, setting and participants Postal survey of all specialists in emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care, medical oncology, palliative medicine, renal medicine and respiratory medicine on the AMPCo Direct database in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Survey initially posted to participants on 18 July 2012 and closed on 31 January 2013. Main outcome measures Medical specialists’ levels of knowledge about the law, based on their responses to two survey questions. Results Overall response rate was 32%. For the seven statements contained in the two questions about the law, the mean knowledge score was 3.26 out of 7. State and specialty were the strongest predictors of legal knowledge. Conclusions Among doctors who practise in the end-of-life field, there are some significant knowledge gaps about the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack decision-making capacity. Significant consequences for both patients and doctors can flow from a failure to comply with the law. Steps should be taken to improve doctors’ legal knowledge in this area and to harmonise the law across Australia.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests : Australian judicial deliberations

•Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. •A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's “best interests”. Yet what this term means is contested. •There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. •Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

Palliative care and other physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and practice relating to the law on withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: Survey results

Background: To effectively care for people who are terminally ill, including those without decision-making capacity, palliative care physicians must know and understand the legal standing of Advance Care Planning (ACP) in their jurisdiction of practice. This includes the use of advance directives/living wills (ADs) and substitute decision-makers (SDMs) who can legally consent to or refuse treatment if there is no valid AD. Aim: The study aimed to investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical specialists most often involved in end-of-life care in relation to the law on withholding/ withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WWLST) from adults without decision-making capacity. Design/participants: A pre-piloted survey was posted to specialists in palliative, emergency, geriatric, renal and respiratory medicine, intensive care and medical oncology in three Australian States. Surveys were analysed using SPSS20 and SAS 9.3. Results: The overall response rate was 32% (867/2702); 52% from palliative care specialists. Palliative Care specialists and Geriatricians had significantly more positive attitudes towards the law (χ242 = 94.352; p < 0.001) and higher levels of knowledge about the WWLST law (χ27 = 30.033; p < 0.001), than did the other specialists, while still having critical gaps in their knowledge. Conclusions: A high level of knowledge of the law is essential to ensure that patients’ wishes and decisions, expressed through ACP, are respected to the maximum extent possible within the law, thereby according with the principles and philosophy of palliative care. It is also essential to protect health professionals from legal action resulting from unauthorised provision or removal of treatment.

Medical education and law: Withholding/withdrawing treatment from adults without capacity

BACKGROUND Law is increasingly involved in clinical practice, particularly at the end of life, but undergraduate and postgraduate education in this area remains unsystematic. We hypothesised that attitudes to and knowledge of the law governing withholding/withdrawing treatment from adults without capacity (the WWLST law) would vary and demonstrate deficiencies among medical specialists. AIMS We investigated perspectives, knowledge and training of medical specialists in the three largest (populations and medical workforces) Australian states, concerning the WWLST law. METHODS Following expert legal review, specialist focus groups, pre-testing and piloting in each state, seven specialties involved with end-of-life care were surveyed, with a variety of statistical analyses applied to the responses. RESULTS Respondents supported the need to know and follow the law. There were mixed views about its helpfulness in medical decision-making. Over half the respondents conceded poor knowledge of the law; this was mirrored by critical gaps in knowledge that varied by specialty. There were relatively low but increasing rates of education from the undergraduate to continuing professional development (CPD) stages. Mean knowledge score did not vary significantly according to undergraduate or immediate postgraduate training, but CPD training, particularly if recent, resulted in greater knowledge. Case-based workshops were the preferred CPD instruction method. CONCLUSIONS Teaching of current and evolving law should be strengthened across all stages of medical education. This should improve understanding of the role of law, ameliorate ambivalence towards the law, and contribute to more informed deliberation about end-of-life issues with patients and families.