Parental responsibility and removal of life sustaining treatment : Re Baby D
Cooper, Donna M. (2011) Parental responsibility and removal of life sustaining treatment : Re Baby D. Queensland Lawyer, 31, pp. 162-164.
The case of Re Baby D (No. 2) has been described as a “landmark decision” as to whether parents themselves can authorise medical staff to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from their child or are required to seek the permission of a court or tribunal. The reasons for the decision that the removal of an endotracheal tube from the airway of Baby D was to treat “a bodily malfunction or disease” and therefore could be authorised by the parents will be explored.
Citation countsare sourced monthly fromand citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloadsdisplays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||Removal of life sustaining treatment, parental authorisation, health law, family law, parental responsibility|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > LAW AND LEGAL STUDIES (180000) > LAW (180100) > Family Law (180113)|
|Divisions:||Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Law|
Current > Schools > School of Law
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters|
|Deposited On:||24 Jan 2012 09:54|
|Last Modified:||25 Jan 2012 08:53|
Repository Staff Only: item control page