Telemedicine has done a very useful job in improving access to medical care during COVID Times.
That said there are some silly things happening out there:
This appeared last week:
Doctors urged not to discuss 'effect of lethal substances' in VAD telehealth consults
They may risk breaking the federal law, says palliative care physician Dr Roger Hunt
8th July 2021
By Kemal Atlay
Doctors in WA have been warned to avoid talking about lethal substances, what is involved in taking them or their effects when conducting telehealth consults with terminally ill patients considering voluntary assisted dying.
The advice follows the launch of the state's voluntary euthanasia scheme last week.
The eligibility criteria and assessment process for patients are similar to the model operating in Victoria.
However, unlike Victoria, there are clauses in WA’s legislation which have been designed to allow doctors and patients to discuss voluntary euthanasia by telehealth in situations where face-to-face consultations are impractical.
The clauses explicitly declare that voluntary assisted dying is not suicide — wording meant to circumvent a Commonwealth criminal code against inciting or counselling a person into suicide via a “carriage service”, including phone and video calls.
But Dr Roger Hunt, who sat on both the WA and Victorian ministerial expert panels on voluntary assisted dying, says doctors in WA still need to be cautious, stressing that protection from prosecution could not be guaranteed until the Commonwealth law was amended.
“Diagnosis, prognosis, symptoms, their options for treatment – all those sorts of things can be discussed through telehealth as if it were a palliative medicine consultation," the palliative care physician said.
“But it's best to avoid discussions about the lethal substance, what is involved when taking it and its effects; those specific issues should not be discussed.”
He added: "It’s a real shame that the Commonwealth law is there, as it is a big cloud hanging over these voluntary assisted dying consultations by telehealth.
"It’s a real barrier to access but the advice to doctors in WA and Victoria is that you do need to be cautious in this area to avoid prosecution."
While the WA legislation says patients and doctors can discuss requests for assisted dying or lethal substance administration decisions using “audiovisual communication”, it goes on to say the provisions “do not authorise the use of a method of communication if, or to the extent that, the use is contrary to or inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth”.
The Commonwealth laws were originally introduced in 2005 with breaches resulting in fines of up to $250,000.
However, in response to questions by Australian Doctor, the federal Attorney-General’s Department said there were “no plans” to change the law.
“It is the responsibility of state governments to ensure their laws are compatible with Commonwealth laws, including by seeking legal advice as necessary,” a spokesperson said.
More here:
Frankly this is a case where ‘the law is an ass’.
Provision of medical advice on palliative care, in all its aspects, via telemedicine should clearly be perfectly safe for both patient and practitioner. The law in this area is just plain stupid.
As far as discussing end of life options for dying patients – including euthanasia – should equally be free of potential legal risk.
To fail to fix this issue is quite absurd. Why it is not being promptly fixed is rooted in the present conservative ideology I suspect. Any humane and caring Government would resolve the issue in a heart-beat without in any way watering down the protections around malicious efforts to incite suicide which is a real risk and was the target of the legislation. A good parliamentary draftsman could easily solve the issue in ½ an hour – let alone the combined wisdom of the AG’s Department.
Just get on with it you of the swollen hair-do and loud voice!
David.
1 comment:
Have to agree David, this is simply bewildering. Again laws can be passed with ease when government feels the need to intrude into our day to day going-ons, but seemly out-to-lunch when it is the people that want a law that allows freedom of choice decisions at a person level.
Post a Comment