title: Withdrawing treatment at the direct or indirect request of patients or in their best interests: HNEAHS v A; Brightwater CG v Rossiter; and Australian Capital Territory v JT.
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ACTSC 105 Australian courts have recently considered the circumstances in which technically futile treatment may be withdrawn from patients at their direct or indirect request or purportedly in their best interests.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 health care in Australia.
authors.affiliation: ANU College of Law and Medical School, The Australian National University. Fauncet@law.anu.edu.au
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Faunce
mesh_terms: D016223:Advance Directives / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001315:Australia; D006801:Humans; D018447:Medical Futility / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*