Objectives: To examine doctors' level of knowledge of the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack decision-making capacity, and factors associated with a higher level of knowledge.
Design, setting and participants: Postal survey of all specialists in emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care, medical oncology, palliative medicine, renal medicine and respiratory medicine on the AMPCo Direct database in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Survey initially posted to participants on 18 July 2012 and closed on 31 January 2013.
Main outcome measures: Medical specialists' levels of knowledge about the law, based on their responses to two survey questions.
Results: Overall response rate was 32%. For the seven statements contained in the two questions about the law, the mean knowledge score was 3.26 out of 7. State and specialty were the strongest predictors of legal knowledge.
Conclusions: Among doctors who practise in the end-of-life field, there are some significant knowledge gaps about the law on withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack decision-making capacity. Significant consequences for both patients and doctors can flow from a failure to comply with the law. Steps should be taken to improve doctors' legal knowledge in this area and to harmonise the law across Australia.
- 1. White B, Willmott L, Allen J. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment: criminal responsibility for established medical practice? J Law Med 2010; 17: 849-865.
- 2. White B, Willmott L, Trowse P, et al. The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: Part 1 (New South Wales). J Law Med 2011; 18: 498-522.
- 3. Willmott L, White B, Parker M, et al. The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: Part 3 (Victoria). J Law Med 2011; 18: 773-797.
- 4. Willmott L, White B, Parker M, et al. The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: Part 2 (Queensland). J Law Med 2011; 18: 523-544.
- 5. White B, Willmott L, Parker M, et al. Should law have a role in end-of-life care? Intern Med J 2012; 42: 966-967.
- 6. White B, Willmott L, Parker M, et al. What do emergency physicians think of the law? Emerg Med Australas 2012; 24: 355-356.
- 7. Parker M, Stewart C, Willmott L, et al. Two steps forward, one step back: advance care planning, Australian regulatory frameworks and the Australia Medical Association. Intern Med J 2007; 37: 637-643.
- 8. Gilligan T, Raffin TA. Whose death is it, anyway? Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 137-141.
- 9. Willmott L, White B, Then S-N. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment. In: White B, McDonald F, Willmott L, editors. Health law in Australia. 2nd ed, Sydney: Thomson Reuters, 2014.
- 10. Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A (2009) 74 NSWLR 88: .
- 11. Bronitt S, McSherry B. Principles of criminal law. 3rd ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters, 2010.
- 12. Inquest into the Death of June Woo (Unreported, Queensland Coroner's Court, State Coroner Barnes SM, 1 Jun 2009).
- 13. CRELS Project Working Group. Conflict resolution in end of life settings (CRELS). Sydney: NSW Department of Health, 2010.
- 14. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Older people and the law. Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2007.
- 15. Preston-Shoot M, McKimm J. Towards effective outcomes in teaching, learning and assessment of law in medical education. Med Educ 2011; 45: 339-346.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.