Kimlin8463

Athletes, many comparatively young, are reported to have initiated legal action claiming their sporting organisation negligently failed to inform itself of the risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and to warn its athletes of that risk when sufficient information to do so was available. This article considers the legal obligation of sporting organisations, perhaps through their medical staff, "to be informed" of the risk of CTE, to assess the risk, and to warn their athletes of that risk. selleck compound The law pertaining to the "medical model", adjusted as to expertise, is proposed as the most suitable test of liability for failure to be informed and to warn. On the basis that CTE is a malady caused by repetitive head trauma, this article argues that delays in acquiring knowledge and warning of the risk of CTE deny athletes the opportunity to make a timely response to the risk of cognitive harm.Medical device regulation was an important element of Australia's response to COVID-19. Early policy initiatives included expedited assessments of COVID-19 diagnostic tests and enhanced communications and information provision. Emergency exemptions enabled continuity of supply of diagnostic tests and personal protective equipment including face masks, and formed part of contingency planning regarding ventilator capacity. A post-market review of face masks improved the quality of face masks included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and prompted broader reforms for low risk (Class I) medical devices. Increased compliance activities and infringement notices focused particularly on importation and advertising issues. Medical device regulatory initiatives effectively aligned with broader public policy objectives and helped achieve crucial collaboration between government and industry. Australia's principles-based regulatory framework adapted well to the challenges of COVID-19.The informed consent model of care for people who identify as transgender is predicated on the idea that a careful mental health assessment and a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria are not necessary preconditions before starting a person on cross-sex hormones. This article considers the legality of the informed consent model in relation to adolescents under 18 in Australia in the light of the decisions of the Family Court in Re Kelvin (2017) 327 FLR 15; [2017] FamCAFC 258 (Re Kelvin) and Re Imogen (No 6) (2020) 61 Fam LR 344; [2020] FamCA 761. The approach taken by the Family Court is predicated on the treatment being a response to a clinically diagnosed disorder, diagnosed after proper assessment. Re Kelvin indicates that assessment and treatment should be conducted by a multidisciplinary team in accordance with internationally recognised standards and guidelines. For these reasons, practising under an informed consent model of care without a mental health assessment or working within a multidisciplinary team, is unlawful.When he first announced Australia's acquisition strategy for the COVID-19 vaccine, Prime Minister Scott Morrison alluded to the possibility of a mandatory vaccination scheme. The statement was met with significant backlash and Mr Morrison promptly rescinded the statement focusing instead on his desire to reach high levels of voluntary vaccine coverage. Nevertheless, interesting legal questions about the possibility of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination arose. This article explores the possible legal frameworks for implementing a mandatory vaccination scheme in Australia as well as the associated ethical dilemmas. Furthermore, it argues that a mandatory vaccination scheme, while possible and arguably ethical, would have undesirable implications resulting in popular opposition and decreased compliance with other voluntary vaccines such as childhood vaccination and seasonal influenza. Consequently, a voluntary scheme based on incentives and transparent provision of information is much more likely to achieve the desired uptake.On 25 March 2020, as part of the Australian response to the coronavirus pandemic, all non-essential elective surgery was indefinitely suspended. This had an immediate impact on the provision of fertility treatment because the vast majority of fertility treatments were classified as non-essential. The suspension ended on 27 April 2020, although other restrictions continued. Between June and August 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews to determine the impact of these initial regulatory responses to the pandemic on the provision of fertility treatment in Australia during two key periods the suspension of non-essential surgery and the re-opening. Changes to the practice of fertility treatment demonstrate the importance of planning for prioritisation and other matters to be addressed in preparation for possible future pandemics.The COVID-19 pandemic raises serious questions about the operation of international agreements for accessing and sharing viruses potentially delaying emergency responses. The access and benefit-sharing (ABS) frameworks under the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol apply to the collection and use of the COVID-19 pathogen SARS-CoV-2. These frameworks aim to ensure countries of origin reap some of the benefits from the use of their resources. Using real-world examples, we demonstrate conceptual and definitional ambiguities relating to "country of origin" that make not only operationalising the ABS scheme for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use objectives difficult but may also undermine public health emergency responses. Understanding how COVID-19 fits (or does not fit) within ABS laws is a valuable exercise for international policy-makers trying to determine how best to operationalise pathogen ABS, an issue currently under examination at the World Health Organization and critical to responding to pandemics.This paper examines the history of Australian superior court decisions on the retrieval of gametic material from deceased men. It examines the history of case law and legislation on the issue and then provides a summary of the current operative principles. The paper concludes with some reflections on the harms caused by posthumous retrieval of gametes, the role of property rights and the nature of reproductive autonomy.Advance planning is increasingly being used in mental health care, particularly in the context of potential compulsory treatment. A variety of advance planning instruments may be used in health care settings and there has been confusion about the most appropriate language to describe them. This adds to confusion about whether an instrument is binding on health professionals or consumers and how the instrument might be disseminated. This column provides an overview and critique of current provisions in Australian law and of the key terms used.The introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into health care has been accompanied by uncertainties and regulatory challenges. The establishment of a regulatory framework around AI in health is in its infancy and the way forward is unclear. There are those who argue that this represents a concerning regulatory gap, while others assert that existing regulatory frameworks, policies and guidelines are sufficient. We argue that perhaps the reality is somewhere in between, but that there is a need for engagement with principles and guidelines to inform future regulation. However, this cannot be done effectively until there is more clarity around the reality of AI in health and common misconceptions are addressed. This paper explores some of these misconceptions and argues for a principled approach to the regulation of AI in health.The decision of the High Court of England and Wales in Bell v Tavistock [2020] EWHC 3274 (Admin) raises important questions regarding best care for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth. In this section, I describe this case, its ruling, and its implications. The ruling is underpinned by the position that puberty suppression can only be ethically and legally permissible where the young person has not only provided their assent but has also been deemed capable to provide valid consent. I challenge this position on three grounds. First, it overlooks the key ethical question of whether puberty suppression is in the individual's best interests. Second, withholding puberty suppression until the young person can consent will likely result in harmful, irreversible consequences for them. Finally, puberty suppression is not sufficiently potentially harmful to justify the additional protection offered by requiring patient consent and court authorisation. For these reasons, I argue that an assent model should govern decisions about puberty suppression for TGD youth.As the world's population ages, a question of who can be trusted to look after the increasing elderly population arises. Health care professionals are commonly considered one of the group of people we entrust with our health care and maintenance of a good quality of life. Unfortunately, some abuse this trust. Harold Shipman, Elizabeth Wettlaufer and Roger Dean are three examples of health care professionals held responsible for multiple homicides of patients aged 65 years and older in their care. link2 Harold Shipman, a United Kingdom doctor, is suspected of killing potentially 400 patients over 27 years. However, the true number may never be known. Elizabeth Wettlaufer, a Canadian nurse, admitted to killing eight patients over seven years and Roger Dean, an Australian nurse, killed 11 patients in one night by deliberately lighting a fire in a health care facility. The subsequent inquiry reports into their actions resulted in multiple recommendations which aimed to prevent similar occurrences and to protect the lives of this vulnerable cohort of people. These recommendations included restrictions on the hiring process of health care professionals and increasing the accountability of access to Schedule Eight drugs by doctors and registered nurses. The governments responsible for responding to the inquiry reports have done so in various ways, although not all recommendations have been implemented and some may not be practical with current residential care infrastructure provisions and requirements. More work is required to determine the types of countermeasures that could be implemented to protect the elderly from maverick health care professionals.During a pandemic such as COVID-19 fear, anxiety and paranoia can become prevalent within the community. Agnotology has taught us that in such times science denialism and vaccination scepticism can gain a foothold and discourage the undiscerning and the uninformed from receiving the treatment and prophylactic public health measures that are essential to community health and safety. When health practitioners endorse such attitudes they pose a serious risk to not only their patients but the whole community. link3 This requires a robust response from health practitioner regulators, disciplinary tribunals and courts. This column identifies such a sensible and proportionate response from the Irish High Court in Medical Council v Waters [2021] IEHC 252 when a general practitioner's registration to practise was suspended for promoting such views. The decision, along with a comparable decision by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in 2020 constitute potent international examples of a robust and commonsense regulatory endorsement of science during a time of public health crisis.