Journal of Law and Medicine最新文献

The mapping and sequencing of the human genome at the turn of the new millennium marks a pivotal reassessment of genomic science in its potential to replace traditional "one-size-fits-all" medicine with a personalised approach. The use of racial proxies in the development of pharmacogenomic products risks conflating genetics with race under the guise of alleviating health disparities. This article argues that the current genomic approaches to realising personalised medicine do not deliver on the promise for optimised health for all and may result in irreversible harm, including psychological, social and medical harm, to racial minority groups. In light of recent epigenetic findings, the article provides a reconceptualisation of the genome and race, which is necessary to understand enduring racial disparities and the cumulative effects of racial discrimination. It then addresses the need for regulatory oversight of the approval of race-based pharmacogenomic products.

In 2021, two years after voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws commenced in Victoria, Western Australia (WA) was the second Australian jurisdiction to permit VAD. While the two regimes are broadly similar, key differences exist. This article reports on findings from a qualitative study of WA participants with VAD experience across four stakeholder groups (patients and families; health practitioners; regulators and VAD system personnel; and health and professional organisation representatives), focusing particularly on participants' reflections on aspects of the WA VAD regime which differs from that in Victoria and the practical implications of those differences. Globally, participants viewed VAD as operating smoothly in Western Australia and, despite identifying some areas for improvement, that WA's model was more functional and accessible than Victoria's. By comparing two different VAD models, this article's findings add to growing empirical evidence about VAD in Australia and can inform future VAD reforms and reviews.

Spit hoods have been used for decades to reduce the ability of people to spit and bite police officers, corrective services officers, paramedics, doctors and nurses. However, historically and in public consciousness they have sinister resonances and often induce fear, panic and distress in persons to whom they are applied or in whose presence they are worn. Problematically frequently spit hoods have been used on detainees from ethnic minorities, including in Australia, on Indigenous persons, individuals with mental illnesses and children taken into custody. On a number of occasions spit hoods have been used with other forms of restraint and been associated with deaths in custody. This editorial reviews high profile cases internationally where spit hoods have played a role in precipitating deaths, important reports and reviews, including from coroners, ombudsmen and commissions of inquiry, into their abuse, and law reform in relation to spit hoods. It supports their abandonment and their replacement with other personal protective equipment options for maintaining custodians' and carers' occupational health and safety.

This section explores the decision of the New South Wales Professional Standards Committee, in Re Teo [2023] NSWMPSC 2. The case provides insights into how the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) regulates practitioners who practise outside of conventional practice. The section compares the decision to similar cases and then concludes with a proposal that an express policy on unconventional practice is needed in Australia.

Advance care planning (ACP) is generally considered as valuable in guiding treatments that are aligned with patients' preferences. Despite its benefits, there are some practical and legal difficulties in its implementation. Predictive modelling is increasingly used in clinical decision-making, for example, in predicting patients' life expectancy, thus enabling clinicians to initiate timely ACP conversations. This development could transform the way end-of-life conversations are implemented. In this article we advocate for the use of predictive modelling in assisting clinicians to initiate ACP conversations provided several safeguards are in place to address ethical concerns that arise. Predictive modelling applications resolve several practical and legal difficulties in conducting end-of-life conversations. Ethical concerns such as explicability, accountability, trustworthiness and reliability of these models in clinical settings are important considerations. However, safeguards are needed to address these ethical concerns to ensure the models are appropriately supportive of patient needs and interests.

A current inconsistency in organ donation is the ability for a family to veto a valid consent for organ donation by a deceased individual; yet the family is unable to veto a valid refusal. Reasons proposed for accepting or rejecting family veto include concerns regarding distress (individual's family vs potential recipients), impact on organ donation rates, and regard for the deceased individual's autonomy. Advance care directives (ACDs) provide an ethical and legal framework for documenting medical treatment decisions which allow an individual to provide directives and to appoint a medical treatment decision-maker to act on their behalf. I argue that consent for organ donation as an ACD under the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) addresses the arguments in support of family veto. This may be an effective ethical and legal framework for managing family veto to meet the needs of the individual, family and community more effectively.

This column examines conscientious objection and institutional objection in Australian voluntary assistance in dying. It reviews the current legislative regimes and then examines these practices from an ethical perspective, and raises particular concerns and suggestions with how conscientious objection and institutional objection should be operationalised.

The introduction of novel medical technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), into traditional clinical practice presents legal liability challenges that need to be squarely addressed by litigants and courts when something goes wrong. Some of the most promising applications for the use of AI in medicine will lead to vexed liability questions. As AI in health care is in its relative infancy, there is a paucity of case law globally upon which to draw. This article analyses medical malpractice where AI is involved, what problems arise when applying the tort of negligence - such as establishing the essential elements of breach of duty of care and causation - and how can these can be addressed. Product liability under Australian Consumer Law is beyond the scope of this article. In order to address this question, the article: (1) identifies the general problems that black box AI causes in the health care sector; (2) identifies the problems that will arise in establishing breach and causation due to the "black box" nature of AI, with reference to the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and common law through two hypothetical examples; and (3) considers selected legal solutions to the problems caused by "black box" AI.

This editorial reviews two landmark contributions to disability reform in Australia, both published in 2023 - the 12 volume report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and the important Commonwealth Government of Australia report on the operation of the 10-year-old National Disability Insurance Scheme. It contends that each leaves Australia with major steps that need to be taken to enable persons with disability to live in a fairer, safer and more inclusive environment in which their human rights are genuinely respected. The reports contain many challenges where a balance needs to be orchestrated between implementation of principled reform and what is financially feasible. If Australia's governments are to adopt the recommendations in the reports, politics will need to be set aside and collaboration between Federal and State governments will be essential. Attitudes and practices will have to change in government and the general community, laws, protocols and even institutions will need to be reformed, accountability mechanisms will need to be tightened, and considerable sums of money will have to be spent.

The Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) provides for the preventive detention of a prisoner if there is "acceptable, cogent evidence" to a "high degree of probability" that the prisoner is a "serious danger to the community" because of an "unacceptable risk" that the prisoner will commit a "serious sexual offence". In preventive detention cases courts rely on the expert opinion of psychiatrists and psychologists who often use actuarial risk assessment instruments. In Black v Attorney-General (Qld) [2022] QCA 253 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered a decision to detain an offender who had a history of possessing and trading child sexual exploitation material but who had not previously been proved to have committed a contact offence against a child. This article analyses the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and critically examines the reliability of probabilistic risk assessment tools and the validity of expert evidence about risk in the preventive detention context.