Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's "best interests". Yet what this term means is contested. There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

Original publication

DOI

10.5694/mja13.10874

Type

Journal article

Journal

Med J Aust

Publication Date

03/11/2014

Volume

201

Pages

545 - 547

Keywords

Advance Directives, Australia, Decision Making, Humans, Life Support Care, Medical Futility, Mental Competency, Proxy, Quality of Life, Terminal Care, Withholding Treatment