What happens if you want access to voluntary assisted dying but your nursing home won’t let you?

Neera Bhatia & Charles Corke

The Conversation

Originally published 30 MAY 22

Voluntary assisted dying is now lawful in all Australian states. There is also widespread community support for it.

Yet some residential institutions, such as hospices and aged-care facilities, are obstructing access despite the law not specifying whether they have the legal right to do so.

As voluntary assisted dying is implemented across the country, institutions blocking access to it will likely become more of an issue.

So addressing this will help everyone – institutions, staff, families and, most importantly, people dying in institutions who wish to have control of their end.

The many ways to block access

While voluntary assisted dying legislation recognises the right of doctors to conscientiously object to it, the law is generally silent on the rights of institutions to do so.

• While the institution where someone lives has no legislated role in voluntary assisted dying, it can refuse access in various ways, including:

• restricting staff responding to a discussion a resident initiates about voluntary assisted dying

• refusing access to health professionals to facilitate it, and

• requiring people who wish to pursue the option to leave the facility.

(cut)

What could we do better?

1. Institutions need to be up-front about their policies

Institutions need to be completely open about their policies on voluntary assisted dying and whether they would obstruct any such request in the future. This is so patients and families can factor this into deciding on an institution in the first place.

2. Institutions need to consult their stakeholders

Institutions should consult their stakeholders about their policy with a view to creating a “safe” environment for residents and staff – for those who want access to voluntary assisted dying or who wish to support it, and for those who don’t want it and find it confronting.

3. Laws need to change

Future legislation should define the extent of an institution’s right to obstruct a resident’s right to access voluntary assisted dying.

The info is here.

Neuroscientist pleads guilty in court to fraud, gets two-year suspended sentence

Retraction Watch
Originally published March 31, 2016

Here is an except:

It’s not often that we see stories of researchers getting sentenced by courts for fraud (even though more scientists are bringing misconduct disputes to the courthouse). Last year, a researcher who confessed to spiking blood samples to boost the findings of an HIV vaccine experiment was sentenced to almost five years in prison, and ordered to pay back millions in grant funding; only a handful of other scientists — such as Eric Poehlman and Scott Reuben — have also been sentenced to jail time for their deeds.

The article is here.

A Time to Fly and a Time to Die: Suicide Tourism and Assisted Dying in Australia Considered

Hadeel Al-Alosi
UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2016-04
January 8, 2016

Abstract:    

Recently, a series of high-profile court cases have led the Director of Public Prosecution in the United Kingdom to publish a policy clarifying the exercise of its discretion in assisted suicide. Importantly, the experience in the United Kingdom serves as a timely reminder that Australia too should formulate its own guideline that detail how prosecutorial discretion will be exercised in cases of assisted suicide. This is especially given the fact that many Australian citizens are travelling to jurisdictions where assistance in dying is legal. Any policy should not, however, distract from addressing law reform on voluntary euthanasia. Australian legislators should be consulting with the public in order to represent the opinion of the majority. Nevertheless, any future policy and law reform implemented should provide adequate safeguards and be guided by the principle of individual autonomy.

The paper is here.

Mental health and disadvantage in Indigenous Australians

Editorial
The Lancet
Volume 380, Issue 9858, Page 1968


Last week, Australia's National Mental Health Commission released A Contributing Life: the 2012 National Report Card on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, its first such publication. The report card takes a whole-of-life approach, recognising that, like everyone else, people who have a mental illness need a stable home, a decent education, a job, good physical health, and a support network, as well as access to high-quality treatment and services.

There is a special focus on the first Australians, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, who still face enormous disadvantages when compared with the general population. This disadvantage starts before birth. For example, three in ten Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, including pregnant women, report barriers to accessing health services. 50% of pregnant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women smoke. And one in seven new Indigenous mothers have postnatal depression. As the report notes, a child born into these circumstances does not have an auspicious start in life. Furthermore, an Indigenous child is two and a half times more likely to be born into the lowest income group, and has a one in two chance of living in a one-parent household when compared with the general population. All these factors play into adolescence and adulthood, and increase the risk of mental health problems and associated issues such as substance misuse in the Indigenous population. Up to 15% of the 10-year life expectancy gap compared with non-Indigenous Australians has been attributed to mental health disorders.

The report recommends the development and implementation of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Mental Health and Social and Emotional Wellbeing Plan to commence in 2013 as well as training and employment of more Indigenous people in mental health services. This must be a national government priority, as should addressing the deep health and social inequalities faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Australia's Indigenous population should have the opportunity to thrive, not just survive.

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62139-4