THE REQUIREMENT FOR TRANS AND GENDER DIVERSE YOUTH TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE COMMENCEMENT OF HORMONE TREATMENT: A COMPARISON OF AUSTRALIAN JURISPRUDENCE WITH THE ENGLISH DECISION IN BELL.

This article outlines the Australian legal position relevant to minors and the commencement of hormone treatment for Gender Dysphoria (GD). It traces the significant Australian legal developments in this field and compares the Australian jurisprudence with recent English caselaw. In Quincy Bell and Mrs A v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and Ors, the English High Court held that minors below 16 years are not likely to have the requisite competency to lawfully consent to the commencement of puberty suppressing drugs. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision, but there are important aspects of the High Court's reasoning that warrant further analysis, particularly some of the underlying reasoning about the nature of GD as a condition and its treatment. This article highlights several common themes when comparing the High Court's reasoning in Bell with Australian jurisprudence and highlights how the Australian position has advanced significantly since the first Australian cases in this field were decided. This comparison shows that the Australian perspective is important in demonstrating how judicial views can advance over time alongside a deeper understanding of GD, its treatment, and the broader impact of a requirement to involve the court in such cases. It is concluded that the Australian perspective should be considered in future English cases.

Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?

The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board adopts an approach to information disclosure in connection with clinical treatment that moves away from medical paternalism towards a more patient-centred approach. In doing so, it reinforces the protection afforded to informed consent and autonomous patient decision making under the law of negligence. However, some commentators have expressed a concern that the widening of the healthcare providers' duty of disclosure may provide impetus, in future cases, for courts to adopt a more rigorous approach to the application of causation principles. The aim would be to limit liability but, in turn, it would also limit autonomy protection. Such a restrictive approach has recently been adopted in Australia as a result of the High Court decision in Wallace v Kam This paper considers whether such an approach is likely under English negligence law and discusses case law from both jurisdictions in order to provide a point of comparison from which to scope the post-Montgomery future.

Comparing Non-Medical Sex Selection and Saviour Sibling Selection in the Case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel: Beyond the Welfare of the Child?

The national ethical guidelines relevant to assisted reproductive technology (ART) have recently been reviewed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). The review process paid particular attention to the issue of non-medical sex selection, although ultimately, the updated ethical guidelines maintain the pre-consultation position of a prohibition on non-medical sex selection. Whilst this recent review process provided a public forum for debate and discussion of this ethically contentious issue, the Victorian case of JS and LS v Patient Review Panel (Health and Privacy) [2011] VCAT 856 provides a rare instance where the prohibition on non-medical sex selection has been explored by a court or tribunal in Australia. This paper analyses the reasoning in that decision, focusing specifically on how the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal applied the statutory framework relevant to ART and its comparison to other uses of embryo selection technologies. The Tribunal relied heavily upon the welfare-of-the-child principle under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic). The Tribunal also compared non-medical sex selection with saviour sibling selection (that is, where a child is purposely conceived as a matched tissue donor for an existing child of the family). Our analysis leads us to conclude that the Tribunal's reasoning fails to adequately justify the denial of the applicants' request to utilize ART services to select the sex of their prospective child.

Treatment for gender dysphoria in children: the new legal, ethical and clinical landscape.

Gender dysphoria is a condition in which a child's subjectively felt identity and gender are not congruent with her or his biological sex. Because of this, the child suffers clinically significant distress or impairment in social functioning. The Family Court of Australia has recently received an increasing number of applications seeking authorisation for the provision of hormones to treat gender dysphoria in children. Some medical procedures and interventions performed on children are of such a grave nature that court authorisation must be obtained to render them lawful. These procedures are referred to as special medical procedures. Hormonal therapy for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children is provided in two stages occurring years apart. Until recently, both stages of treatment were regarded by courts as special medical treatments, meaning court authorisation had to be provided for both stages. In a significant recent development, courts have drawn a distinction between the two stages of treatment, permitting parents to consent to the first stage. In addition, it has been held that a child who is determined by a court to be Gillick competent can consent to stage 2 treatment. The new legal developments concerning treatment for gender dysphoria are of ethical, clinical and practical importance to children and their families, and to medical practitioners treating children with gender dysphoria. Medical practitioners should benefit from an understanding of the recent developments in legal principles. This will ensure that they have up-to-date information about the circumstances under which treatment may be conducted with parental consent, and those in which they must seek court authorisation.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests: Australian judicial deliberations.

Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's "best interests". Yet what this term means is contested. There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

School-based youth health nurses and adolescent decision-making concerning reproductive and sexual health advice: How can the law guide healthcare practitioners in this context?

Abstract School-Based Youth Health Nurses (SBYHNs) work in Queensland high schools, providing sexual and reproductive health care/advice (amongst other things) to adolescents. SBYHNs are often responsible for referring high school students to other health care practitioners or external health services/community agencies. One of the difficulties faced in this context is how to assess the issue of capacity in terms of the adolescent's ability to provide consent to his or her own health care without parental involvement. This is important because it enables SBYHNs to maintain confidentiality with adolescents, which encourages adolescents to obtain sexual health advice. In this paper we outline the key legal principles relevant to nurses working in this field. We provide some practical examples of issues faced by SBYHNs and consider how the issue of Gillick competency is relevant to these examples. We demonstrate that the law seeks to prioritise the concept of confidentiality and aims to avoid exposing adolescents to harm that may result from unsafe sexual practices. Importantly, the issues discussed in this paper are relevant to nurses working within this field in all Australian jurisdictions.

"Best interests" and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction.

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient's "best interests". However, the application of the "best interests" test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult's best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

School-Based Youth Health Nurses and Adolescent Decision-Making Concerning Reproductive and Sexual Health Advice: How Can the Law Guide Healthcare Practitioners in this Context?

Abstract School-Based Youth Health Nurses (SBYHNs) work in Queensland high schools, providing sexual and reproductive health care/advice (amongst other things) to adolescents. SBYHNs are often responsible for referring high school students to other health care practitioners or external health services/community agencies. One of the difficulties faced in this context is how to assess the issue of capacity in terms of the adolescent's ability to provide consent to his or her own health care without parental involvement. This is important because it enables SBYHNs to maintain confidentiality with adolescents, which encourages adolescents to obtain sexual health advice. In this paper we outline the key legal principles relevant to nurses working in this field. We provide some practical examples of issues faced by SBYHNs and consider how the issue of Gillick competency is relevant to these examples. We demonstrate that the law seeks to prioritise the concept of confidentiality and aims to avoid exposing adolescents to harm that may result from unsafe sexual practices. Importantly, the issues discussed in this paper are relevant to nurses working within this field in all Australian jurisdictions.

Double standards in special medical research: questioning the discrepancy between requirements for medical research involving incompetent adults and medical research involving children.

Medical research represents a substantial departure from conventional medical care. Medical care is patient-orientated, with decisions based on the best interests and/or wishes of the person receiving the care. In contrast, medical research is future-directed. Primarily it aims to contribute new knowledge about illness or disease, or new knowledge about interventions, such as drugs, that impact upon some human condition. Current State and Territory laws and research ethics guidelines in Australia relating to the review of medical research appropriately acknowledge that the functions of medical care and medical research differ. Prior to a medical research project commencing, the study must be reviewed and approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). For medical research involving incompetent adults, some jurisdictions require an additional, independent safeguard by way of tribunal or court approval of medical research protocols. This extra review process reflects the uncertainty of medical research involvement, and the difficulties surrogate decision-makers of incompetent adults face in making decisions about others, and deliberating about the risks and benefits of research involvement. Parents of children also face the same difficulties when making decisions about their child's research involvement. However, unlike the position concerning incompetent adults, there are no similar safeguards under Australian law in relation to the approval of medical research involving children. This column questions why this discrepancy exists with a view to generating further dialogue on the topic.

Back to the future: prohibiting surrogacy for singles, same-sex and shorter-term heterosexual couples in Queensland.

This article considers the regulatory position concerning altruistic surrogacy in Queensland, focusing on the intended changes to the current legal framework announced by the government in June 2012. The previous government had made significant progress by reforming surrogacy laws in 2010. However, that progress is at risk of being reversed. The proposed changes to the law would make it a criminal offence to enter into an altruistic surrogacy arrangement for certain individuals or couples. If enacted, the offence would only apply in altruistic surrogacy cases where the intended parent or parents are either single, in a same-sex relationship, or are in a heterosexual relationship of less than two years. Moreover, if enacted, the offence would apply extra-territorially. The authors argue that these changes represent a retrograde step for the law and urge the government to reconsider. This is based on the fact that they are out of step with current social attitudes, are contrary to the spirit of anti-discrimination laws, and that they are unjustified in terms of child welfare concerns.

Regulating assisted reproductive technologies in Victoria: the impact of changing policy concerning the accessibility of in vitro fertilisation for preimplantation tissue-typing.

On 1 January 2010, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act 2008 (Vic) came into force. The legislation was the outcome of a detailed review and consultation process undertaken by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. Arguably, the change to the regulatory framework represents a significant shift in policy compared to previous regulatory approaches on this topic in Victoria. This article considers the impact of the new legislation on eligibility for reproductive treatments, focusing on the accessibility of such services for the purpose of creating a "saviour sibling". It also highlights the impact of the Victorian regulatory body's decision to abolish its regulatory policies on preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation tissue-typing, concluding that the regulatory approach in relation to these latter issues is similar to other Australian jurisdictions where such practices are not addressed by a statutory framework.