Advanced directives, the right to die and the common law: recent problems with blood transfusions.
The Australian common law suffers from a lack of judicial authority on the right to die, in particular the right of patients to make anticipatory decisions to refuse treatment. Recent cases concerning the right of patients to refuse life-saving blood transfusions have highlighted the need for a substantial judicial clarification of this area. This article critically examines one of the most recent Australian cases in detail and compares its approach with those from other common countries. After taking this comparative analysis the article puts forth a common law model of anticipatory decision-making and examines how that model might work in the context of current legislative frameworks.
Stewart
C
C
Faculty of Law, University of Western Sydney at Macarthur, Australia.
D024362:Advance Directive Adherence / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016223:Advance Directives / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001315:Australia; D001803:Blood Transfusion / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D002961:Civil Rights; D003657:Decision Making; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D033221:Jehovah's Witnesses; D033222:Judicial Role; D007872:Legal Guardians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007878:Legislation as Topic; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D012297:Right to Die / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*