Australia’s aging population amplifies the fact that protective legislation for the elderly must be introduced.
Question 7:
Refer to both the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) and the AHPRA Code of Conduct to explain why medical practitioners and others are obliged to explain to patients/clients the consequences of proposed treatments. Medical practitioners and other health care professionals are obligated to explain to patients/clients the consequences of proposed treatments in order to enable them to make an informed decision and made aware of any material risks that are associated with any part of the proposed management plan (Code, section 3.3(d)(e)(g), page 10) (CMT&PCA (s15)).
Question 8:
‘There is no …show more content…
(ii) Are the sub-sections in section 17(1) of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) presented as conjuncts or disjuncts?
These subsections are presented as conjuncts, as they are joined with the word ‘and’. All must be fulfilled for section 17(1) to apply (CMT&PCA, (s17(1)).
Question 9:
The case of Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229 drew the attention of the Western Australian Right to Life group. This group claimed that section 262 of the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) applied to the facts of the case.
(i) What does section 262 say about the circumstances or conditions that might render a person fully dependent on his or her caregivers?
The conditions or circumstances that might render a person fully dependent on caregivers to provide the necessaries of life are; age, sickness, mental impairment, detention or any other cause that causes the person to be unable to provide himself with the necessaries of life (CCA) (WA) (s262)).
(ii) What was Justice Martin’s finding in the …show more content…
The standard of care the court will apply will be the widely accepted standard of competent professional practice in Australia by members of the same profession (CLA (s41(1)).
(ii) If the surgeon’s legal counsel calls witnesses who testify truthfully that her techniques were widely but not universally accepted, would that information help to rebut the allegation?
Yes, that information would help to rebut the allegation as professional opinion does not have to be universally accepted to be considered widely accepted (CLA (s41(4)).
(iii) Will proof that something was a widely accepted practice among neurosurgeons also help to rebut an allegation of negligence if the practice in question was one around information giving to patients in preparation for an elective surgical procedure?
No, the proof that something was widely accepted practice will not help rebut an allegation of negligence if the practice in question was around information giving to patients in preparation of an elective surgical procedure, as the standard of care for professions does not apply to the liability arising in connection with the giving of a warning, advice or other information in respect of a risk of death of or injury associated with the provision of a health care service (CLA
Question 7:
Refer to both the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) and the AHPRA Code of Conduct to explain why medical practitioners and others are obliged to explain to patients/clients the consequences of proposed treatments. Medical practitioners and other health care professionals are obligated to explain to patients/clients the consequences of proposed treatments in order to enable them to make an informed decision and made aware of any material risks that are associated with any part of the proposed management plan (Code, section 3.3(d)(e)(g), page 10) (CMT&PCA (s15)).
Question 8:
‘There is no …show more content…
(ii) Are the sub-sections in section 17(1) of the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995 (SA) presented as conjuncts or disjuncts?
These subsections are presented as conjuncts, as they are joined with the word ‘and’. All must be fulfilled for section 17(1) to apply (CMT&PCA, (s17(1)).
Question 9:
The case of Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229 drew the attention of the Western Australian Right to Life group. This group claimed that section 262 of the Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) applied to the facts of the case.
(i) What does section 262 say about the circumstances or conditions that might render a person fully dependent on his or her caregivers?
The conditions or circumstances that might render a person fully dependent on caregivers to provide the necessaries of life are; age, sickness, mental impairment, detention or any other cause that causes the person to be unable to provide himself with the necessaries of life (CCA) (WA) (s262)).
(ii) What was Justice Martin’s finding in the …show more content…
The standard of care the court will apply will be the widely accepted standard of competent professional practice in Australia by members of the same profession (CLA (s41(1)).
(ii) If the surgeon’s legal counsel calls witnesses who testify truthfully that her techniques were widely but not universally accepted, would that information help to rebut the allegation?
Yes, that information would help to rebut the allegation as professional opinion does not have to be universally accepted to be considered widely accepted (CLA (s41(4)).
(iii) Will proof that something was a widely accepted practice among neurosurgeons also help to rebut an allegation of negligence if the practice in question was one around information giving to patients in preparation for an elective surgical procedure?
No, the proof that something was widely accepted practice will not help rebut an allegation of negligence if the practice in question was around information giving to patients in preparation of an elective surgical procedure, as the standard of care for professions does not apply to the liability arising in connection with the giving of a warning, advice or other information in respect of a risk of death of or injury associated with the provision of a health care service (CLA