Competence and capacity at the end of life: uneasy paternalism

Reutens, Sharon G; Peisah, Carmelle

doi:10.5694/mja11.11596

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

To the Editor: Le and Chapman’s article1 on capacity at the end of life raises a number of timely issues, given our ageing population and the autonomous rights of individuals in end-of-life decision making.2

1 Australian Centre for Capacity, Ethics and the Prevention of Exploitation of People with Disabilities, Sydney, NSW.
2 University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: sreutens@unsw.edu.au

Competing interests:

The authors have received honoraria from Pfizer and Alzheimer’s Australia for speaking engagements.

1. Le BH, Chapman MD. Competence and capacity at the end of life: uneasy paternalism. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 476-477. <MJA full text>
2. O’Neill N, Peisah C. Capacity and the law. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 2011. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydUPLawBk/2011/1.html (accessed Dec 2011).
3. Ryan CJ, Callaghan S. Legal and ethical aspects of refusing medical treatment after a suicide attempt: the Wooltorton case in the Australian context. Med J Aust 2010; 193: 239-242. <MJA full text>
4. Davis JK. The concept of precedent autonomy. Bioethics 2002; 16: 114-133.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Competence and capacity at the end of life: uneasy paternalism

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *