Healthcare Australia Discussion 2022

Running head: HEALTHCARE
HEALTHCARE
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author note:

1
HEALTHCARE
Introduction
Even though the suitable role for law in healthcare practice is questioned, there is no
uncertainty that law serves a highly decisive role in regulating medication. This significant
role also takes account of end-of-life care, with majority of the countries devising legal
frameworks which regulate decisions related to life-sustaining treatment. According to
studies, these laws commonly recognise the authority to employ substitute or alternate
decision-makers in order to complete the advance instructions (Carter, Detering, Silvester &
Sutton, 2016). Per se, clinicians have imperative legal accountabilities in this part that
involves evaluation of the patient’s ability to agree to the withholding or withdrawing of
provided treatment, recognizing an authorised decision-maker in which a patient shows lack
of capacity, and if a progressive directive needs to be monitored. Druml et al. (2016) have
noted that the act of withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment be likely to show
great challenges for health care providers, patients as well as their family members. When
health conditions of a patient shows no improvements or to be approaching its end, it is
normally supposed that the ethically best approach is to attempt for innovative or new
intervention, continue all necessary cures or opt for an experimental development of action
(Esbensen, 2016). The following paper will analyse the case of Ms Huang who desires to
withdraw her life-sustaining treatment and identify legal and professional issues which are
likely to arise in medical context.
Discussion
Capacity and Consent of Patients to Withdraw Medical Treatment
Under the Common Law of Australia, all capable adults can provide approval as well
as refuse to receive medical treatment. However, if the consent fails to get established, there
might raise certain legal costs for health specialists (Carter, Detering, Silvester & Sutton,
2016). Furthermore, according to the law of trespass, it is noted that patients who have stable

2
HEALTHCARE
cognitive functioning have the authority not be exposed to a disturbing procedure devoid of
consent or additional lawful defence related to an emergency or stipulation. Additionally, the
Common law of Australia has recognised few conditions where patient might not be able to
obtain the required informed consent (Capacity and Consent to Medical Treatment, 2020).
These situations can be linked to impaired decision-making capacity or areas in which
agreement to the proposed or given treatment may not be essential such as in the case of
emergency. A central principle of health law in Australia is related to an adult’s right to make
decisions on what requires to be done for treating the health. This takes in the right to consent
to or the rights to decline or withdraw medical treatment (Halliday, Formby & Cookson,
2015).
Moreover, under Australia End of law regulation, an adult who has the required
ability or capacity can withdraw medical treatment even though the failure to obtain
treatment will be consequential to death. Thus an adult can withdraw medical treatment based
on any grounds which can be based on religious causes or personal views about the idea of a
tolerable or acceptable quality of life. In the view of Carter, Detering, Silvester and Sutton,
2016)., as long as adult patient has the cognitive ability there are limited restrictions on the
legal grounds to refuse medical treatment. By drawing relevance to these factors, it can be
noted that since Ms Huang is cognitively intact she has lawful right to refuse or withdraw the
provision of life sustaining nutrition and fluids via a PEG tube.
Agreeing to withdrawing life-prolonging treatment does not constitute euthanasia
Passive voluntary euthanasia implicates the removal or refusal of medical action from
a patient in accordance to the appeal of patient and family members to end the life of the
patient. Instances of these actions involve the resuscitating of patient in cardiac arrest,
termination of provision of life support instrument or withholding or removing additional
medical precaution that would lengthen life (Humanrights.gov.au, 2016). Furthermore,

3
HEALTHCARE
withholding or withdrawing medical treatment at present take place in Australia as per a
number of conditions and regulations.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) correspondingly claims that medical
treatment possibly will not be secured at situations where such treatment will fail to offer a
balanced assurance of benefit and value or will implement an undesirable or offensive
obligation on the patient. In addition, there is an ongoing debate, related to the implications
whether these procedures are positioned within the understanding of euthanasia. Under the
assertions of the AMA, not introducing or removing life-sustaining treatment does not
constitute euthanasia where health professionals are responding in accordance with upright
and legal standards of medical practice. Studies mention that health professionals who
perform in accordance with principled and decent good faith and rationally agree to the
appeal of patient in withdrawing or continuing provision of medical treatment in support of
an advance ordinance are commonly considered to be performing as per the permission of the
patient (Druml et al., 2016). For example, in Western Australia as well as the Northern
Territory, legislation mentions that health professionals is considered to be responding in
accordance to the valid consent while depending on an advance instruction, even in situations
where there might be chances of life loss of patients (Ko & Blinderman, 2015).
Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is not the same as Euthanasia
There is a strong legal distinction in Australia and other countries like the United
States between withdrawing life-supporting treatment associated with ventilation for patients
or artificial nutrition as well as fluids for those who are unable to swallow or consume food
or liquid and euthanasia that is considered as a lethal injection or medicine to end one’s life.
However, in contrast, philosophers and legal researchers differ (Kitzinger & Kitzinger, 2015).
The nearly common opinion is that when clinicians remove life-supporting treatment from a
patient they tend to take the life conditions and moreover permit patients to expire from the