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

Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 17, pp. 349-354, 2009

ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 10-67

7 Pages Posted: 18 Aug 2010

Date Written: 2009

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ACTSC 105 Australian courts have recently considered the circumstances in which technically futile treatment may be withdrawn from patients at their direct or indirect request or purportedly in their best interests.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

Suggested Citation

Faunce, Thomas Alured, 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 (2009). Journal of Law and Medicine, Vol. 17, pp. 349-354, 2009; ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 10-67. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1660172

Thomas Alured Faunce (Contact Author)

Australian National University ( email )

Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200
Australia
61 2 61253563 (Phone)

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
120
Abstract Views
831
rank
231,896
PlumX Metrics