Malcolm K. Smith

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 patients “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 patients best interests. Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patients best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

Preventing the selection of “deaf embryos” under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: problematizing disability?

Section 14(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 imposes – within the general licensing conditions listed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 – a prohibition to prevent the selection and implantation of embryos for the purpose of creating a child who will be born with a “serious disability.” This article offers a perspective that demonstrates the problematic nature of the consultation, review, and legislative reform process surrounding s 14(4). The term “serious disability” is not defined within the legislation, but we highlight the fact that s 14(4) was passed with the case of selecting deaf children in mind. We consider some of the literature on the topic of disability and deafness, which, we think, casts some doubt on the view that deafness is a “serious disability.” The main position we advance is that the lack of serious engagement with alternative viewpoints during the legislative process was unsatisfactory. We argue that the contested nature of deafness necessitates a more robust consultation process and a clearer explanation and defence of the normative position that underpins s 14(4).

Comparing Non-Medical Sex Selection and Saviour Sibling Selection in the Case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel: Beyond the Welfare of the Child?

The national ethical guidelines relevant to assisted reproductive technology (ART) have recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The review process paid particular attention to the issue of non-medical sex selection, although ultimately, the updated ethical guidelines maintain the pre-consultation position of a prohibition on non-medical sex selection. Whilst this recent review process provided a public forum for debate and discussion of this ethically contentious issue, the Victorian case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel (Health and Privacy) [2011] VCAT 856 provides a rare instance where the prohibition on non-medical sex selection has been explored by a court or tribunal in Australia. This paper analyses the reasoning in that decision, focusing specifically on how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal applied the statutory framework relevant to ART and its comparison to other uses of embryo selection technologies. The Tribunal relied heavily upon the welfare-of-the-child principle under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic). The Tribunal also compared non-medical sex selection with saviour sibling selection (that is, where a child is purposely conceived as a matched tissue donor for an existing child of the family). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Tribunal’s reasoning fails to adequately justify the denial of the applicants’ request to utilize ART services to select the sex of their prospective child.

Treatment for gender dysphoria in children: the new legal, ethical and clinical landscape

Gender dysphoria is a condition in which a childs subjectively felt identity and gender are not congruent with her or his biological sex. Because of this, the child suffers clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning. The Family Court of Australia has recently received an increasing number of applications seeking authorisation for the provision of hormones to treat gender dysphoria in children. Some medical procedures and interventions performed on children are of such a grave nature that court authorisation must be obtained to render them lawful. These procedures are referred to as special medical procedures. Hormonal therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children is provided in two stages occurring years apart. Until recently, both stages of treatment were regarded by courts as special medical treatments, meaning court authorisation had to be provided for both stages. In a significant recent development, courts have drawn a distinction between the two stages of treatment, permitting parents to consent to the first stage. In addition, it has been held that a child who is determined by a court to be Gillick competent can consent to stage 2 treatment. The new legal developments concerning treatment for gender dysphoria are of ethical, clinical and practical importance to children and their families, and to medical practitioners treating children with gender dysphoria. Medical practitioners should benefit from an understanding of the recent developments in legal principles. This will ensure that they have up‐to‐date information about the circumstances under which treatment may be conducted with parental consent, and those in which they must seek court authorisation.

Saviour Siblings and the Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology: Harm, Ethics and Law

Advances in the field of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) have been revolutionary. This book focuses on the use of ARTs in the context of families who seek to conceive a matching sibling donor as a source of tissue to treat an existing sick child. Such children have been referred to as ‘saviour siblings’. Considering the legal and regulatory frameworks that impact on the accessibility of this technology in Australia and the UK, the work analyses the ethical and moral issues that arise from the use of the technology for this specific purpose. The author claims the only justification for limiting a family’s reproductive liberty in this context is where the exercise of reproductive decision-making results in harm to others. It is argued that the harm principle is the underlying feature of legislative action in Western democratic society, and as such, this principle provides the grounds upon which a strong and persuasive argument is made for a less-restrictive regulatory approach in the context of ‘saviour siblings’.

School-Based Youth Health Nurses and Adolescent Decision-Making Concerning Reproductive and Sexual Health Advice: How Can the Law Guide Healthcare Practitioners in this Context?

Abstract School-Based Youth Health Nurses (SBYHNs) work in Queensland high schools, providing sexual and reproductive health care/advice (amongst other things) to adolescents. SBYHNs are often responsible for referring high school students to other health care practitioners or external health services/community agencies. One of the difficulties faced in this context is how to assess the issue of capacity in terms of the adolescents ability to provide consent to his or her own health care without parental involvement. This is important because it enables SBYHNs to maintain confidentiality with adolescents, which encourages adolescents to obtain sexual health advice. In this paper we outline the key legal principles relevant to nurses working in this field. We provide some practical examples of issues faced by SBYHNs and consider how the issue of Gillick competency is relevant to these examples. We demonstrate that the law seeks to prioritise the concept of confidentiality and aims to avoid exposing adolescents to harm that may result from unsafe sexual practices. Importantly, the issues discussed in this paper are relevant to nurses working within this field in all Australian jurisdictions.

Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?

The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board adopts an approach to information disclosure in connection with clinical treatment that moves away from medical paternalism towards a more patient-centred approach. In doing so, it reinforces the protection afforded to informed consent and autonomous patient decision making under the law of negligence. However, some commentators have expressed a concern that the widening of the healthcare providers’ duty of disclosure may provide impetus, in future cases, for courts to adopt a more rigorous approach to the application of causation principles. The aim would be to limit liability but, in turn, it would also limit autonomy protection. Such a restrictive approach has recently been adopted in Australia as a result of the High Court decision in Wallace v Kam. This paper considers whether such an approach is likely under English negligence law and discusses case law from both jurisdictions in order to provide a point of comparison from which to scope the post-Montgomery future.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: restrictions on the creation of “saviour siblings” and the relevance of the harm principle

This paper provides an overview of the regulatory developments in the UK which impact on the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo screening techniques for the creation of “saviour siblings.” Prior to the changes implemented under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, this specific use of IVF was not addressed by the legislative framework and regulated only by way of policy issued by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Following the implementation of the statutory reforms, a number of restrictive conditions are now imposed on the face of the legislation. This paper considers whether there is any justification for restricting access to IVF and pre-implantation tissue typing for the creation of “saviour siblings.” The analysis is undertaken by examining the normative factors that have guided the development of the UK regulatory approach prior to the 2008 legislative reforms. The approach adopted in relation to the “saviour sibling” issue is compared to more general HFEA policy, which has prioritized the notion of reproductive choice and determined that restrictions on access are only justified on the basis of harm considerations.