ACHLR and HEAL webinar (July 2024)
Professor Dominique E. Martin discussed the ethical and legal implications of “family vetoes” in the case of deceased registered organ donors.
Dominique is introduced by Professor Shih-Ning Then (Deputy Director, Australian Centre for Health Law Research), and the presentation slides are available online.
You can listen to the presentation below:
Abstract
In many countries, including Australia, a small but increasing proportion of families decline deceased donation of organs or tissues on behalf of a potential donor who has previously registered their wish to donate. This phenomenon is often referred to as the “family veto” or “override” in deceased donation decision-making. References to family vetoes typically provoke anger and frustration among those who express disbelief that such vetoes are respected by donation professionals despite the negative impact they appear to have on opportunities for transplants.
However, family vetoes are usually more complicated than a simple discordance between the donation preferences of potential donors and those of their families. Several factors may influence family decisions to decline donation on behalf of a registered donor as well as the responses of donation professionals to such decisions. In exploring these factors, I will argue that respecting a proposed “veto” may be ethically – and legally – appropriate in many cases.
When family vetoes are debated, it is also often assumed that family preferences are being prioritised at the expense of a legally binding directive made by the potential donor. However, donor registration in Australia is not a legally binding directive, although it plays an important role in guiding donation decision-making. Rather than seeking to strengthen protections for registered donors against the alleged risk of family vetoes, I will argue that we ought to focus more on improving the quality of decision-making about donation during people’s lives to better support definitive donation decision-making at the time of their death.
Global Law, Science and Technology Seminar Series
MAiD in Canada: Cautionary Tale or Model? (April 2023)
In the second episode of the QUT Global Law, Science and Technology Seminar Series for 2023, co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR), Professor Jocelyn Downie described the legal status of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in Canada and explained what is happening in practice.
You can watch the presentation below:
Gendered impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic (October 2022)
In this fifth seminar of the 2022 series, co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR), Professor Sara Davies discussed how gender roles determined women’s risk exposure. These findings demonstrate an urgent need to introduce crisis response measures that differentiate the gendered social and economic impacts of crises, especially for informal workers.
You can watch the presentation below:
Health Technology and Big Data: Is ethical debt inevitable? (April 2022)
In the first QUT Global Law, Science and Technology seminar series for 2022, co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR), Associate Professor Bernadette Richards explored the challenges of trustworthy data governance:
Wills formalities in the 21st Century – Promoting testamentary intention in the face of societal change and advancements in technology (November 2021)
In the fifth QUT Global Law, Science and Technology seminar series for 2021, co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR), Professor Bridget Crawford investigated the purposes of traditional will-making requirements and their continued vitality in the context of remotely witnessed wills:
The Autonomous Subject at the End of Life: Autonomy, Vulnerability, and Medical Assistance in Dying
In this third QUT Global Law, Science and Technology seminar for 2021, co-hosted by the Australian Centre for Health Law Research (ACHLR), Professor Margaret Isabel Hall, Adjunct Professor ACHLR, looked critically at the problematic construction and application of “autonomy” and “vulnerability” and considered the difference it would make to place an alternative account of these ideas at the principled centre of analysis: