To the Editor: In their report on the findings in Hope v Hunter and New England Area Health Service,1 Mahar and Burke suggest that some of the judge’s reasoning “may reasonably cause apprehension for clinicians relying on the peer professional practice defence”.2 In her Editor’s Choice, Katelaris mirrors this apprehension.3 But the judge’s findings are not nearly so troubling.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- Discipline of Psychiatry and Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Correspondence: christopher.ryan@sydney.edu.au
- 1. Hope v Hunter and New England Area Health Service [2009] NSWDC 307.
- 2. Mahar PD, Burke JA. What is the value of professional opinion? The current medicolegal application of the “peer professional practice defence” in Australia. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 253-255. <MJA full text>
- 3. Katelaris AG. Reasonable practice is not defensive practice [editor’s choice]. Med J Aust 2011; 194: 219. <MJA full text>
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.