Prestonmurray8462

A challenge in end-of-life care is requests by patients or their substitute decision-makers for treatment that doctors consider is "futile" or "non-beneficial". Concerns that these concepts are uncertain and subjective have led to calls for medical policies to clarify terminology and to provide procedural solutions to prevent and address disputes. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of how Australian medical guidelines and policies on withholding or withdrawing potentially life-sustaining treatment address futility. It demonstrates that while the concept is found throughout medical policies and guidelines, the terminology employed is inconsistent. There is also variability in the extent of guidance given about unilateral decision-making and mechanisms for dispute resolution. This is problematic, given that the question of further treatment can often only be determined in relation to the individual patient's goals and values. We conclude by advocating for the development of a unified policy approach to futile or non-beneficial treatment in Australia.The law has a clear role to play in supporting patients and their substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to be involved in end-of-life (EOL) decision-making. Although existing literature suggests that knowledge of EOL law is variable among health professionals, there is little information about the extent and sources of such knowledge within the general community. A telephone survey of a representative sample of adults in three Australian States used six case scenarios to examine the extent to which adults know their legal duties, rights and powers as patients or SDMs; the sources from which people derive relevant legal knowledge; experiences of EOL decision-making; and individual characteristics associated with levels of knowledge. The results show considerable variation in levels of legal knowledge dependent primarily of the area of decision-making presented, some sizeable gaps in people's knowledge of EOL law, and varied awareness of how to access appropriate information on this subject. This study points to the need to increase community legal literacy around EOL decision-making, enhance awareness of the role of law in these circumstances and promote the availability of reliable and accessible information on the law at the time when it is needed.In this article we consider whether sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) (factually) cause type 2 diabetes for the purposes of negligence. In so doing we demonstrate how factual causation is confounded by other contributing factors such as genetics, lack of physical activity and other diet behaviours (eg low-fibre and high-fat diets). That said, a plaintiff is not necessarily deprived of the opportunity to prove causation merely because there are multiple contributing factors to the harm. While difficult, it is possible for type 2 diabetes to be categorised as an "exceptional circumstance", in which it must be shown that SSBs "materially contributed" to or were a "necessary element" of, the development of type 2 diabetes.Following the decision of Bernieres v Dhopal (2017) 324 FLR 21; [2017] FamCAFC 180 it seems that intended parents of children born via overseas compensated surrogacy arrangements will not be recognised as legal parents in Australia. This decision results in harmful outcomes for children and represents a missed opportunity for the Full Court of the Australian Family Court to resolve this issue. Therefore, this article is intended to act as a plea for a review of the approach. Acknowledging the difficulties faced by the Family Court in attempting to resolve issues of parentage in compensated surrogacy cases within the parameters of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the authors suggest two possible alternative approaches. These approaches would enable the Court to stay true to the existing legislative framework while at the same time achieving what is clearly the desirable outcome for the children; that is having their intended and functional parents recognised as their legal parents.While Australia is a world leader in providing statutory donor-linking services - the practice whereby individuals connected through donor conception seek access to information about each other - there has been only limited exploration of how fertility clinics respond when approached with donor-linking requests. This article reports on 19 qualitative interviews conducted with Australian fertility clinic staff that explored how clinics manage requests to share identifying and non-identifying information about parties involved in donor conception. Our findings indicate that fertility clinics have experienced an increase in donor-linking requests in recent years, but that they are typically dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Two approaches to donor linking were identified (1) an "active" approach where clinics supported donor linking and were willing to engage in outreach to see if the other party was open to information exchange; and (2) a "passive" approach whereby clinics were reluctant to facilitate linking and were unwilling to outreach to other parties. The variety of responses to donor-linking requests highlight the ways in which donor-conceived adults, parents and donors can have dramatically different access to information, depending on the clinic that provided treatment.The shift from basic science to potentially more lucrative applied science and commercialisation has had a profound impact on sharing biological materials for research purposes. Free exchanges of ideas and research materials have become cloaked in contractual obligations, driven by commercialisation and impact policies, particularly through material transfer agreements (MTAs). selleck chemical There has been no analysis of the terms included in MTAs routinely used by Australian universities and research institutes for the transfer of biological materials for research. This study analyses terms from 45 MTAs used by Australian universities and research organisations as well as common standard agreements. Our findings suggest that drafters need to refocus MTA terms to the purpose behind which materials are exchanged. Terms need to be directed primarily towards compatibility with the research effort rather than the remote possibility of future commercial and translational opportunities. This refocusing should simplify MTA terms, expediting materials transfer and supporting research.