*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: care.anz@tr.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (International customers) or +61 2 9171 9769 (Australian customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AEST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Journal of Law and Medicine<\/em> (Volume 31 Part 1) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 Editor: Ian Freckelton AO KC<\/em><\/p>\n Banning Engineered Stone: A Landmark Australian Public Health Law Reform <\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Ian Freckelton AO KC<\/em><\/p>\n Union activism, medical lobbying and occupational health and safety prosecutions led to a major public health initiative in Australia \u2013 the banning from 1 July 2024 of work with engineered\/artificial stone, including manufacturing, supplying, processing and installing it. This editorial contextualises within the history of regulation of workers\u2019 exposure to risks of contracting silicosis the growing international awareness of the dangers posed by working with engineered stone, particularly in relation to making and installing kitchen and bathroom benchtops made from engineered stone. It argues that the Australian initiative is an important public health decision that has a sound justification, is likely to save many lives and should be emulated internationally.<\/p>\n HEALTH LAW REPORTER \u2013 Editor: Cameron Stewart<\/em><\/p>\n The Anatomy Act 1977 (NSW) Dissected: Review and Reform <\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Jonna-Susan Mathiessen and Cameron Stewart<\/em><\/p>\n This column discusses the Anatomy Act 1977 <\/em>(NSW) and its regulatory environment. The column begins with examining the history of anatomy regulation in the United Kingdom and Australia. It then goes on to analyse the history of the current anatomy regulation in New South Wales, pointing out areas for reform.<\/p>\n LEGAL ISSUES \u2013 Editor: Gabrielle Wolf<\/em><\/p>\n Addressing a Human Rights Crisis: Health Care for Prisoners in Australia <\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Gabrielle Wolf and Mirko Bagaric<\/em><\/p>\n People are sent to prison as punishment and not to experience additional punishment. Nevertheless, this principle is habitually violated in Australia: prisoners frequently receive health care that is inferior to health care that is available in the general community. Numerous official inquiries have identified deficiencies in prisoner health services, notwithstanding the apparent intention of legislative provisions and non-statutory guidelines and policies in various jurisdictions to ensure prisoners receive appropriate health care. This article proposes law reforms to address this human rights crisis. It recommends the passage of uniform legislation in all Australian jurisdictions that stipulates minimum prison health care service standards, as well as mechanisms for ensuring they are implemented. The article also suggests that, in the short-term, until prison health care is significantly improved, substandard health care for prisoners should be treated as a potentially mitigating sentencing factor that can reduce the length of a defendant\u2019s prison term.<\/p>\n MEDICAL ISSUES \u2013 Editor: Michael O\u2019Connor<\/em><\/p>\n Sexual Boundary Violations by Doctors \u2013 Context, Regulatory Consequences and Preventive Strategies <\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Mike O\u2019Connor, Christopher Rudge and Cameron Stewart<\/em><\/p>\n While sexual boundary violations by doctors (SBVs) are viewed with utmost seriousness by disciplinary bodies and tribunals, complaints of SBVs in Australia continue to increase. In 2023, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) outlined a \u201cblueprint\u201d to protect patients better from sexual misconduct in healthcare: reform being considered in 2024, by Australian health ministers. Few analyses or studies have offered an overview of the prevalence, effects, and causes of SBVs, nor the duties, liabilities, possible disciplinary action against, and potential treatment of, doctors who commit them. This column offers such an overview, and considers, additionally, whether doctors who may have psychiatric disorders associated with their boundary violations would be suitable candidates for treatment. Ultimately, we contend that a purely \u201cresponsive\u201d approach is inadequate, and preventive measures such as screening and more effective education should be considered in medical schools as a way of reducing the incidence of SBVs.<\/p>\n When is a Health Practitioner Not \u201ca Fit and Proper Person\u201d to Practise Their Health Profession in Australia? <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Chris Corns<\/p>\n Prior to implementation of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) (National Law) the term \u201cgood character\u201d was used in the statutory regulation of health practitioners in Australia. \u201cGood character\u201d has been jettisoned in the National Law and replaced with the concept of \u201cfit and proper person\u201d. The term \u201cfit and proper person\u201d plays an important role in the regulation of health practitioners under the National Law. \u201cFit and proper person\u201d is not defined in the National Law, but case law has narrowed the term to refer to \u201cmoral integrity\u201d and \u201crectitude of character\u201d. These considerations can be applied in the context of application for registration, immediate action, and disciplinary proceedings in relevant tribunals. Application of the \u201cfit and proper person\u201d test serves to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the health professions and the integrity of the regulatory regime, as distinct from protecting the public from unsafe and incompetent health professionals.<\/p>\n Untested Stem Cell Treatments: An Analysis of Australia\u2019s Current Regulatory <\/strong>Regime <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Nicolas Cavasinni and Patrick Foong<\/p>\n Stem cell therapies have emerged as a miracle cure that could treat diseases and conditions. The past decade has seen the rapid growth of private clinics in some nations, including Australia, offering stem cell treatments largely untested and unsupported by clinical trials. These putative treatments have caused adverse events, some of which were serious and even fatal. The unscrupulous businesses exploit vulnerable and desperate patients who falsely believe these unproven therapies are their only salvation to cure different illnesses and conditions. This article emphasises the importance of strict oversight to ensure that only safe stem cell products reach patients, given the largely vulnerable patient base and the magnitude of risks involved. It examines the effectiveness of Australia\u2019s regulatory environment governing stem cell therapies to restrict the advertisement of dangerous and unproven stem cell therapies and the enforceability of these measures.<\/p>\n Professional Standards for Specialist Medical Administrators: Over-the-top Downunder? <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Owen M Bradfield and Erwin Loh<\/p>\n In Australia, there are only two publicly reported disciplinary cases against specialist medical administrators. In the most recent decision of Medical Board of Australia v Gruner<\/em>, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal confirmed that specialist medical administrators owe patients and the public the same professional obligations as medical practitioners with direct patient contact. More controversially, the Tribunal also held that medical administrators have a professional obligation only to accept roles with clear position descriptions that afford them sufficient time and resources to ensure the safe delivery of health services. We argue that this imposes unrealistic expectations on medical administrators engaged by rural, regional, or private health services that already struggle to attract and retain specialist medical expertise. This may exacerbate existing health inequalities by disincentivising specialist medical administrators from seeking fractional appointments that assist under-funded areas of workforce shortage.<\/p>\n Clinical Teaching and Consent: An Analysis of New Zealand\u2019s Legal Requirements for Obtaining Consent to Clinical Teaching Involving Consumers of Health<\/em> and Disability Services <\/em><\/strong><\/a>\u2013 Lydia Wadsworth<\/p>\n Student involvement in patient care without consent has attracted recent attention in New Zealand. New Zealand\u2019s Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers\u2019 Rights (Code) gives patients the right to give or refuse consent to participate in clinical teaching, but its practical application to clinical teaching, particularly postgraduate, is unclear. This article explores the history and precedent of the Code and ethical considerations, to inform where amendment to the Code is desirable in the interests of clarity, pragmatism, and to reflect better the legislature\u2019s intent.<\/p>\n Medical and Legal Uncertainties and Controversies in \u201cShaken Baby Syndrome\u201d or Infant \u201cAbusive Head Trauma\u201d <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 James Tibballs and Neera Bhatia<\/p>\n Uncertainties and controversies surround \u201cshaken baby syndrome\u201d or infant \u201cabusive head trauma\u201d. We explore Vinaccia v The Queen <\/em>(2022) 70 VR 36; [2022] VSCA 107 and other selected cases from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On expert opinion alone, a \u201ctriad\u201d of clinical signs (severe retinal haemorrhages, subdural haematoma and encephalopathy) is dogmatically attributed diagnostically to severe deliberate shaking with or without head trauma. However, the evidence for this mechanism is of the lowest scientific level and of low to very low quality and therefore unreliable. Consequently, expert opinion should not determine legal outcomes in prosecuted cases. Expert witnesses should reveal the basis of their opinions and the uncertainties and controversies of the diagnosis. Further, the reliability of admissions of guilt while in custody should be considered cautiously. We suggest abandonment of the inherently inculpatory diagnostic terms \u201cshaken baby syndrome\u201d and \u201cabusive head trauma\u201d and their appropriate replacement with \u201cinfantile retinodural haemorrhage\u201d.<\/p>\n Facilitating Safe Access to Health Care through Legislative Reform \u2013 The Australian Experience <\/strong><\/em><\/a>\u2013 Tania Penovic and Ronli Sifris<\/p>\n The realisation of the right to health is vulnerable to the interventions of strangers, acting on the belief that certain health care should not be permissible under the law or accessible in practice. In Australia, the key arena for such interventions has been abortion services. Drawing on empirical research undertaken by the authors, this article examines the impact of these interventions and the effectiveness of \u201csafe access zone\u201d laws that now operate nationwide to constrain them. After examining the unsuccessful constitutional challenge to these laws in the High Court of Australia, it considers whether safe access zones may have utility in other health care contexts.<\/p>\n \u00a0How Does Narcotic Control Impact upon Human Individual Rights: An Islamic and International Human Rights Perspectives <\/em><\/a><\/strong>\u2013 Sarah Balto<\/p>\n Illegal trafficking of narcotics and problems associated with illegal substance abuse have attracted great deal of attention over the years. However, there are concerns about how to solve this problem while still respecting individual rights. In general terms, it has been alleged by numerous international observers that in many instances human rights have not been fully respected or observed in the fight against illicit drugs. When it comes to Shari\u2019a law, the fundamental premise is that narcotics abuse and trafficking is clearly in violation of Islamic principles. This article highlights the importance of adopting a human rightsbased approach to policies regarding narcotics and discusses the potential conflict and the State\u2019s obligation to enforce laws which protect their citizens with individual citizen\u2019s rights. It will focuses on Islamic laws and takes Saudi Arabia as an example given the fact that the Saudi Arabia bases its constitution on Sharia.<\/p>\n BOOK REVIEW<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – JLM Vol 31 No 1 Contents<\/a>.<\/p>\n Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU<\/a><\/p>\nArticles<\/h3>\n
\n