{"title":"Management of Behaviours in Dementia: Treatment or Restraint?","authors":"Rohan Wee","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The use of antipsychotic medication in the management of behaviours of concern in dementia is complex. Antipsychotics may be part of medical treatment or be a restrictive practice. The uncertainty around consent for restrictive practices exposes patients to the risk of antipsychotic use without consent and doctors to the risk of liability. This situation is even less clear in Victoria following the ruling in HYY [2022] VCAT 97. This article examines the process of consent, the potential liabilities and possible defences. It concludes that changes are needed to the process for obtaining consent to use antipsychotic medications for restrictive practices, especially in Victoria.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1255-1268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10692589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Autonomy Versus Integrity: The \"Mind\" and its \"Body\" in the Law.","authors":"Chris Dent","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The law has changed, over the past century, in respect of how it sees the legal subject. From the 1980s, the law began to articulate an understanding of the \"mind\" of those who came before the courts. This is evident in decisions around nervous shock in negligence law. The law also began to articulate a distinction between the \"mind\" and the \"body\" - evident in the law of consent to health treatment. The engagement of the courts with the development of the capacity of children to consent, in particular, when tied with the idea of \"abstraction\", allows for an in-depth exploration of the concepts. The assessment of the law in the two areas, in turn, facilitates an exploration of the law's understanding of the \"autonomy\" and the bodily \"integrity\" of the legal subject.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1241-1254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10692593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Acting Immediately - A Review of Recent Court and Tribunal Decisions Reviewing the Use of the Immediate Action Power under the National Law.","authors":"Jamie Orchard","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The power of National Boards to take immediate action under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act to restrict the ability of health practitioners to practise is an important aspect of the regulator's drive to protect the public. This article examines the development of the law in respect of the use of the power, primarily by reference to court and tribunal decisions across the various jurisdictions in Australia. Some of the key principles from the decisions are identified as well as certain areas in which the law is still developing and may be a little uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1109-1127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10699372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Stanley v Finnegan: Child Abuse and Bad Medicine.","authors":"Adam Jardine, Marilyn Bromberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In April 2020 American President Donald Trump publicly stated that consuming disinfectant could cure COVID-19. This apparently shocking statement was not so shocking to many: some people believe that consuming Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), a name for chlorine dioxide, an industrial bleach, can cure many illnesses. This article is a case note about Stanley v Finnegan, 447 F Supp 3d 771, 777 (WD Ark, 2020), in which parents sued their local county and sheriff in Arkansas for taking their children away after they encouraged their children to consume MMS. This case is particularly important in the current COVID-19 world.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1288-1297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10692591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Role of the Medical Profession in Occupational Lung Disease and Access to Compensation.","authors":"Sally Weir, Leah O'Keefe, Ross Sottile","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The relationship between exposure to toxins at work and lung diseases continues to be significantly under-recognised in Australia. Medical practitioners are well placed to identify occupational risk factors for disease. They can therefore play a vital role in informing regulatory responses, highlighting dangerous workplaces and supporting access to compensation to assist with better health outcomes for their patients. Increased awareness among medical practitioners of occupational factors can aid early diagnosis and improve patient outcomes by improving access to justice. Medical practitioners should be cognisant of the occupational causes of lung disease in Australia to support appropriate specialist referral and ensure patients can access additional support systems available through legal compensation systems. More broadly, medical professionals and lawyers assisting workers share the common aim of highlighting preventable diseases and advocating for change to help make workplaces safer.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1236-1240"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10699374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Throwing a Cat among the Pridgeon(s): The New South Wales Court of Appeal and the Public Interest Test under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law.","authors":"Cameron Stewart, Christopher Rudge","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This section examines the 2022 decision of Pridgeon v Medical Council of New South Wales in the New South Wales Court of Appeal that has taken a fundamentally different view of the public interest test employed in immediate action hearings under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. The section starts by examining the case and then looks at the approach taken by subsequent decisions. It will argue that the decision is substantially at odds with earlier authorities from all around Australia and fails to understand properly the meaning and purpose of the test.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1011-1025"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10708054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Responses to Monkeypox: Learning from Previous Public Health Emergencies.","authors":"Ian Freckelton, Gabrielle Wolf","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the 1970s, the zoonotic disease monkeypox was reported as appearing in humans, principally in central and west Africa. However, from May 2022, escalating numbers of persons worldwide contracted it. On 23 July 2022, the World Health Organization declared this outbreak to be a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) and initially observed that it was \"concentrated among men who have sex with men, especially those with multiple sexual partners.\" The international public health response to monkeypox provides a litmus test to evaluate whether lessons have been learned from experiences of other infectious diseases in recent decades. This editorial identifies evidence of progress in the following areas: the declaration of a PHEIC in relation to monkeypox; some high-income countries' responses to monkeypox; naming of the virus, its variants and the disease it causes; protection of LGBTIQ+ communities and engagement of them to curb transmission of monkeypox; and efforts to ensure access to equitable vaccines.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"967-986"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10708057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sophie Lewis, Lindy Willmott, Ben P White, Camille La Brooy, Paul Komesaroff
{"title":"First Nations Perspectives in Law-Making About Voluntary Assisted Dying.","authors":"Sophie Lewis, Lindy Willmott, Ben P White, Camille La Brooy, Paul Komesaroff","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Voluntary assisted dying laws have now been enacted in all six Australian States with reform being considered in the remaining two. While there is an emerging body of literature examining various aspects of regulation, there has been scant consideration of what these reforms mean for First Nations peoples, and to what extent their experiences have been considered in the process of developing legislation. This article provides a critical analysis of how Indigenous perspectives both contributed to, and were engaged with, during the law reform processes in Victoria and Western Australia, the first two States to grapple with this topic. Findings reveal the sophistication in how Indigenous organisations and individuals engaged with this issue and highlight the critical importance of not universalising Indigenous perspectives. Significantly, there was much greater engagement with Indigenous views in Western Australia than in Victoria. We conclude by considering how Indigenous voices can meaningfully influence Australian law reform processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1168-1181"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10699377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Managing Families' Expectations in the Coronial Jurisdiction: Barriers to Enacting an Ethic of Care.","authors":"Belinda Carpenter, Gordon Tait, Steph Jowett","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The coronial jurisdiction is different in function, character and procedure to most other legal processes in Australia, being inquisitorial rather than adversarial. It is also, by virtue of its focus on the circumstances of death, situated at the intersection of trauma and grief on the one hand, and legal exploration and evidence-gathering, on the other. For families a coronial investigation offers the potential for resolution about a death, but it can also exacerbate grief and trauma, particularly in the public forum of an inquest. This article utilises interviews with legal professionals engaged in the coronial jurisdiction to explore their understanding of the issues that impact upon families during a death investigation. Our findings indicate that an ethics of care is evident in the court but that this remains contingent on adequate resourcing of the sector, and that this is increasingly the case as the jurisdiction becomes more specialised.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1040-1051"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10699370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Regulatory Investigations: Regulators, Regulatees and the Public Interest.","authors":"Arie Freiberg","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The potential for adverse consequences of investigations by a regulatory authority into complaints made against a person whom it regulates raises important questions about how regulators or similar bodies are, or should be, held accountable for their actions. This article examines the legal duties or other obligations that a regulator of health practitioners owes to people it regulates as well as to those who make complaints or submit notifications and to the public at large. It raises the general question of what duties or obligations any regulator or similar body with investigatory or coercive powers owes to persons arising out of its investigations. It finds that although they do not have a legal duty of care to a regulatee to protect them from harm, there may be other reasons why a regulator may want to consider the welfare of those whom it regulates as well as other affected parties.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"29 4","pages":"1026-1039"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9267040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}