Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/21460
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWillmott, Lindy-
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Ben-
dc.contributor.authorKo, Danielle-
dc.contributor.authorDownar, James-
dc.contributor.authorDeliens, Luc-
dc.date2019-08-07-
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-12T05:00:19Z-
dc.date.available2019-08-12T05:00:19Z-
dc.date.issued2020-03-
dc.identifier.citationBMJ supportive & palliative care 2019; 10(1): 105-110en
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/21460-
dc.description.abstractOn 19 June 2019, assisted dying became lawful in Victoria, the second most populous state in Australia. Section 8 of the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act is a legislative safeguard that is designed to ensure a patient's request for assistance to die is voluntary. This section prohibits health practitioners from initiating a conversation about assisted dying with the patient. This article explores the potential implications of this prohibition for effective communication between doctors and their patients, and the ability of doctors to provide high quality end-of-life (EOL) care in some cases. The authors reviewed and analysed literature on the importance of communication at the EOL including the need to understand and appropriately respond to Desire to Die or Desire to Hasten Death statements. A legal critique of section 8 of the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act was also undertaken to determine the scope of this new duty and how it aligns with existing legal obligations that would otherwise require doctors to provide information about EOL options requested by a patient. Contemporary literature suggests that open and honest communication between doctor and patient including the provision of information about all EOL options when sought by the patient represents good clinical practice and will lead to optimal EOL care. The provision of such information also reflects professional, ethical and legal norms. Despite (arguably) promoting an appropriate policy objective, the legislative prohibition on health professionals initiating conversations about voluntary assisted dying may, in cases where patients seek information about all EOL options, lead to less optimal patient outcomes.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectassisted dyingen
dc.subjectdesire to dieen
dc.subjectdesire to hasten deathen
dc.subjectend of life communicationen
dc.subjectvoluntary assisted dyingen
dc.titleRestricting conversations about voluntary assisted dying: implications for clinical practice.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleBMJ supportive & palliative careen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustralian Centre for Health Law Research, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAustin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgiumen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canadaen
dc.identifier.affiliationEnd of Life Care Research Group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgiumen
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjspcare-2019-001887en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.pubmedid31391175-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptPalliative Care-
crisitem.author.deptClinical Ethics-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

12
checked on Feb 5, 2023

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.