Gardner; re BWW: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding

Ashby, Michael and Mendelson, Danuta 2004, Gardner; re BWW: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding, Medical journal of Australia, vol. 181, no. 8, pp. 442-445.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Gardner; re BWW: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding
Author(s) Ashby, Michael
Mendelson, Danuta
Journal name Medical journal of Australia
Volume number 181
Issue number 8
Start page 442
End page 445
Publisher Australasian Medical Publishing Company Pty. Ltd.
Place of publication Sydney, NSW
Publication date 2004-04-19
ISSN 0025-729X
1326-5377
Summary • The Victorian Supreme Court has decided that artificial nutrition and hydration provided through a percutaneous gastrostomy tube to a woman in a persistent vegetative state may be withdrawn.
• The judge ruled, in line with a substantial body of international medical, ethical and legal opinion, that any form of artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical procedure, not part of palliative care, and that it is a procedure to sustain life, not to manage the dying process.
• Thus, the law does not impose a rigid obligation to administer artificial nutrition or hydration to people who are dying, without due regard to their clinical condition. The definition of key terms such as “medical treatment”, “palliative care”, and “reasonable provision of food and water” in this case will serve as guidance for end-of-life decisions in other states and territories.
• The case also reiterates the right of patients, and, when incompetent, their validly appointed agents or guardians, to refuse medical treatment.
• Where an incompetent patient has not executed a binding advance directive and no agent or guardian has been appointed, physicians, in consultation with the family, may decide to withdraw medical treatment, including artificial nutrition or hydration, on the basis that continuation of treatment is inappropriate and not in the patient’s best interests. However, Victoria and other jurisdictions would benefit from clarification of this area of the law

Language eng
Field of Research 180126 Tort Law
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30006473

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Law
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 10 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 526 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 31 Jul 2008, 10:39:22 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.