Abstract
Following the advice of the State Crown Solicitor of New South Wales, issued in 1990, there has been doubt regarding the legality of "not-for-resuscitation" orders and the circumstances under which such orders may be made. Recent cases in England and New Zealand have considered the issue of the withdrawal of life-support treatment and it is suggested that the principles discussed in that context may have ramifications for Cardio-pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) decisions. In this article, those decisions are considered, along with various pieces of Australian legislation, in order to draw a conclusion as to when No-CPR orders are justified, and in what circumstances CPR may be lawfully withheld, withdrawn or refused. Proposals are advanced for law reform in order to give proper effect to the conclusions drawn.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 131-146 |
| Journal | Journal of Law and Medicine |
| Volume | 2 |
| Publication status | Published - 1994 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Tort Law
- Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Withdrawing, Withholding and Refusing Emergency Resuscitation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver