Melbourne Law School - Research Publications

Permanent URI for this collection

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    The Schiavo and Korp cases: Conceptualising end-of-life decision making
    SKENE, LOANE (Law Book Co., 2005)
    An incompetent, terminally ill patient can be viewed in two ways – as a person who is dying, when futile, life-prolonging treatment can be lawfully withdrawn; or a person with a disability, for whom a guardian must be appointed to decide about treatment. Terri Schiavo’s husband took the first view and her parents the second. Maria Korp was regarded as dying when treatment was withdrawn. The difference in conceptualising a patient’s situation is critical. Where a patient is dying, treatment can be lawfully withdrawn whatever the view of the relatives; they cannot require treatment to be continued. Where a patient has a disability and a surrogate decision maker is appointed, the focus is on what the patient would have wanted in such circumstances, so that the surrogate can act in accordance with the patient’s wishes. That deflects attention from the fundamental legal principle that whatever a patient or the relatives want, they are not legally entitled to demand treatment that doctors consider futile in the circumstances.
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Undertaking research in other countries: National ethico-legal barometers and international ethical consensus statements
    Skene, L (PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE, 2007-02)
    Is it ethical for scientists to conduct or to benefit from research in another country if that research would be unlawful, or not generally accepted, in their own country?
  • Item
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    NEUROIMAGING AND THE WITHDRAWAL OF LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT FROM PATIENTS IN VEGETATIVE STATE
    Skene, L ; Wilkinson, D ; Kahane, G ; Savulescu, J (OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2009)
  • Item
    No Preview Available
    The role of the church in developing the law
    Skene, L ; Parker, M (BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP, 2002-08)
    The church and other community organisations have a legitimate role to play in influencing public policy. However, intervention by the church and other religious bodies in recent litigation in Australia and the United Kingdom raises questions about the appropriateness of such bodies being permitted to intervene directly in the court process as amici curiae. We argue that there are dangers in such bodies insinuating their doctrine under the guise of legal argument in civil proceedings, but find it difficult to enunciate a principled distinction between doctrine and legal argument. We advise that judges should exercise caution in dealing with amicus submissions.
  • Item
  • Item
    No Preview Available