先进的指令,死亡的权利和普通法:最近的输血问题。

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Melbourne University Law Review Pub Date : 1999-04-01
C Stewart
{"title":"先进的指令,死亡的权利和普通法:最近的输血问题。","authors":"C Stewart","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46300,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advanced directives, the right to die and the common law: recent problems with blood transfusions.\",\"authors\":\"C Stewart\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚普通法缺乏关于死亡权利的司法权威,特别是关于病人作出拒绝治疗的预期决定的权利。最近关于病人有权拒绝挽救生命的输血的案件突出表明,有必要对这一领域进行实质性的司法澄清。本文对澳大利亚最近的一个案例进行了详细的批判性研究,并将其方法与其他常见国家的方法进行了比较。在进行这种比较分析之后,本文提出了一种预见性决策的普通法模式,并考察了该模式如何在当前立法框架的背景下发挥作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Assessing Refugee Protection Claims at Australian Airports: The Gap Between Law, Policy, and Practice Tricked into marriage Is a cause of action a castle? Statutory choses in action as property and s51(xxxi) of the Constitution The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law: The Rationale for a Statelessness Determination Procedure Non-consensual porn and the responsibilities of online intermediaries
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1