Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Withdrawing treatment at the direct or indirect request of patients or in their best interests: HNEAHS v A; Brightwater CG v Rossiter; and ACT v JT

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Bai, J.
Russell, Hilary
Faunce, Thomas

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

The Law Book Company

Abstract

In Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A [2009] NSWSC 761; Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229; and Australian Capital Territory v JT [2009] ACTSC 105 Australian courts have recently considered the circumstances in which technically futile treatment may be withdrawn from patients at their direct or indirect request or purportedly in their best interests. The cases provide many valuable lessons about how norms of ethics, law and international human rights shape the regulatory framework of this area of health care in Australia.

Description

Citation

Source

Journal of Law and Medicine

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

Open Access

License Rights

DOI

Restricted until