Abstract
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.
| Original language | Canadian English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press |
| Publication status | Published - Jan. 1 2013 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Medical Futility
- End of Life Decision-Making
- Withholding and Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment
- Adult Guardianship Law
- Australia
- New Zealand
- Duty to Treat
Disciplines
- Comparative and Foreign Law
- Health Law and Policy
- Human Rights Law
- Law
- Legislation
- Medical Jurisprudence
- Torts
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Withholding and Withdrawal of ‘Futile’ Life-Sustaining Treatment: Unilateral Medical Decision-Making in Australia and New Zealand'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver