![]() There is no specific requirement that the person be near death for the excuse to apply. To be reasonable the palliative case must accord with good medical practice. reasonable, having regard to the person's state at the time and in the circumstances of the case.provided in good faith and with reasonable care and skill and. ![]() to maintain or improve the comfort of a person who is subject to pain and suffering.The Criminal Code (Qld) section 282A provides that a person (a doctor, or someone authorised in writing by a doctor), who hastens a person's death through palliative care, is not criminally responsible for the death if the palliative care is: in accordance with proper professional standards of palliative care.in good faith and without negligence and.with the consent of the person or their representative.with the intention of relieving pain or distress.the person has an illness or condition that is likely to result in death, and there is no real prospect of recovery or a remission in symptoms) to a person in the terminal phase of a terminal illness (i.e.Under the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) section 17, a medical practitioner or someone supervised by a medical practitioner, who hastens a person’s death through medical treatment or care is not liable in civil or criminal law for the person’s death if it is administered: In the Australian Capital Territory, the legislation is framed as a right to palliative care in certain circumstances, so how it excuses criminal liability is less clear. These States (but not the Australian Capital Territory) recognise that if the doctrine of double effect applies, the person who provides the pain and symptom relief will not be liable under the civil or criminal law for the person’s death (provided certain criteria are met). South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory have legislation containing versions of the doctrine of double effect. South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory are the only States and Territories that have introduced legislation containing versions of the doctrine of double effect.ĭouble effect in South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory However, some doctors consider that properly administered pain and symptom relief does not hasten death, and that double effect is not needed. In practice, double effect has generally been accepted in the legal and medical professions, and by medical professional bodies. For this reason, it is likely to be part of Australia’s common (judge-made) law, and applies to health practitioners throughout Australia. Double effect has been applied by courts in similar legal systems such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. To date there has not been a court case in Australia which has specifically confirmed that double effect is part of Australian law (though the Family Court in Re Baby D (No 2) suggests it likely is). The doctrine of double effect originated from moral theology. In South Australia, it will apply only when the person is in the terminal phase of a terminal illness. The requirement for a person to be near death is discussed further below. The better the person’s prognosis, the less likely the doctrine will protect health professionals if death is hastened. The law is unlikely to protect the provision of pain and symptom relief when the person's death is not imminent. This is specifically required by the legislation in some States and Territories.ĭouble effect is likely to apply only when the person is near death. nurses, carers and family members will also be protected provided a doctor has authorised them to administer it, and supervises the medication plan. Other people who deliver pain and symptom relief e.g. If the primary intention is to relieve pain and symptoms, not cause death, the person who gave the medication will not be criminally responsible for a death which follows, even if it is foreseen.Īdministered by a doctor, or someone authorised by a doctorĭoctors are protected by double effect. The most critical element of double effect is intention. medication is prescribed and administered by a doctor caring for the person, or administered under that doctor's orders and.the primary intention is to relieve pain and symptoms, not hasten death.While the scope of the law in Australia has not yet been tested, double effect is likely to apply only when: This recognises that giving medication (usually by a health professional) to a person to relieve pain and symptoms is lawful even if it could hasten death. In this situation the ‘doctrine of double effect’ may apply. In the final stages of life, there may be concerns that pain and symptom relief may have the unintended effect of hastening a person's death.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |