Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Improving law at the end of life: a legacy of Schiavo’s case?

By Ben White and Lindy Willmott - posted Tuesday, 17 May 2005


There are competing considerations in having a doctor play such a role. On one hand, the safeguard of good medical practice may be warranted to protect adults with impaired capacity from relatives who would withhold or withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment in inappropriate circumstances.

On the other hand, the legislation has deliberately moved away from having a doctor make these decisions. The previous law would have been to apply the best interests test discussed above, which has been criticised for being too heavily driven by medical considerations rather than by what the adult would have wanted. One reason for the legislation changing the law to allow a family member to make these decisions was to secure an outcome more in accordance with an adult’s wishes.

Another criticism of the veto might be that it gives significant power to a single doctor to assess what he or she thinks is good medical practice. It could also be argued that there are already sufficient safeguards to deal with potential abuse by relatives. For example, under Queensland’s legislation an individual (such as a doctor, nurse or relative) who is concerned about decisions being made for an adult can bring the matter before a tribunal to review the decision independently.

Advertisement

Finding solutions to problems such as these is difficult. There is some justification for allowing doctors to veto decisions by relatives, but there are also compelling reasons why these matters should generally be left to families. Inevitably, choices as to what the law should be must be made and it is unlikely everyone in the community will agree with those choices. What is critical, however, is that these options must be considered and fully discussed by the people who are to be governed by whatever law is chosen.

The case of Terri Schiavo is a tragic one but perhaps there can at least be one positive outcome. Hopefully the case has awakened an interest and commitment from the wider community to think about these matters and participate in discussions of how this area of law should be regulated.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Article edited by Angela Sassone.
If you'd like to be a volunteer editor too, click here.

The authors are currently reviewing the Queensland law regarding withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment, and have published an Issues Paper for consultation entitled Rethinking Life-Sustaining Measures: Questions for Queensland. They are seeking submissions and comments on the questions posed in the paper. Copies of the paper (and more details about the project) are available from here and submissions can be made to bp.white@qut.edu.au or l.willmott@qut.edu.au.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Ben White is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Queensland University of Technology. He teaches and researchs in the area of 'end of life' decision making.

Lindy Willmott is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Queensland University of Technology. Lindy teaches and researchs in the area of 'end of life' decision making.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Ben White
All articles by Lindy Willmott

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Ben WhiteBen WhitePhoto of Lindy WillmottLindy Willmott
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Latest from QUT
 The science of reporting climate change
 Why schools need more than a business plan
 Suburban resilience
 Science unlimited
 Wake-up call for science
 More...
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy