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

Thomas Faunce*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

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ACTSC 105 Australian courts have recently considered the circumstances in which technically futile treatment may be withdrawn from patients at their direct or indirect request or purportedly in their best interests.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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)349-354
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of law and medicine
Volume17
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2009

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Withdrawing treatment at the direct or indirect request of patients or in their best interests: HNEAHS v A; Brightwater CG v Rossiter; and Australian Capital Territory v JT.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this