AL [2017] WASAT 91

Jurisdiction:	STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL	Citation No:	[2017] WASAT 91
Act:	GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA)
Case No:	GAA:939/2017	Heard:	5 APRIL 2017
Coram:	MS H LESLIE (MEMBER)	Delivered:	28/06/17
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Advance health directive was found not to prevent AL's guardians from consenting to the medical treatment currently needed as the Advance health directive correctly construed did not refuse that treatment
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	AL
Catchwords:	Advance health directive
Legislation:	Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 110Q, s 110Q(1), s 110Q(1)(a), s 110S, s 110T, s 110Y, s 110Z(1), Pt 9B Guardianship and Administration Regulations 2005 (WA), reg 7, Sch 2
Case References:	Nil
Summary	The application to the Tribunal was for directions regarding the construction of the terms of an advance health directive. The Tribunal determined that to be valid, an advance health directive needed to be completed in the prescribed form of alternating recitals of particular sets of circumstances, followed by the treatment which is either consented to or refused in those particular sets of circumstances. For treatment decisions expressed in an advance health directive to be valid and binding, this format needs to be followed so that each treatment decision is given a clear context. The Tribunal found that the AHD completed by the author in this case contained only one validly expressed refusal of treatment, and that other insertions in the printed form which did not follow this format of alternating recitals of circumstances, followed by the decision or decisions either consented to or refused in those particular circumstances, were not validly expressed treatment decisions. The Tribunal found that guardians validly appointed under an Enduring Power of Guardianship could make health treatment decisions for the author of the advance health directive but not a decision which contradicted this one validly expressed refusal of treatment contained in the advance health directive.

JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : AL [2017] WASAT 91 MEMBER : MS H LESLIE (MEMBER) HEARD : 5 APRIL 2017 DELIVERED : 28 JUNE 2017 FILE NO/S : GAA 939 of 2017

GAA 946 of 2017

MATTER : AL

Represented Person

Catchwords:

Advance health directive

Legislation:

Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 110Q, s 110Q(1), s 110Q(1)(a), s 110S, s 110T, s 110Y, s 110Z(1), Pt 9B

Guardianship and Administration Regulations 2005 (WA), reg 7, Sch 2

Result:

Advance health directive was found not to prevent AL's guardians from consenting to the medical treatment currently needed as the Advance health directive correctly construed did not refuse that treatment

Summary of Tribunal's decision:

The application to the Tribunal was for directions regarding the construction of the terms of an advance health directive. The Tribunal determined that to be valid, an advance health directive needed to be completed in the prescribed form of alternating recitals of particular sets of circumstances, followed by the treatment which is either consented to or refused…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read AL and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] WASAT 91
Decision Date: 28 JUNE 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case concerning AL, the primary dispute involved the interpretation of an Advance health directive. AL, a patient, had a directive in place that was meant to guide decisions regarding their medical treatment. However, AL's current medical needs required interventions not explicitly addressed by the directive, leading to a conflict between the directive and the immediate treatment requirements. The court was tasked with determining whether the Advance health directive precluded AL's guardians from consenting to the necessary medical treatment.

The central legal issues were whether the Advance health directive effectively refused the treatment currently needed and whether it was permissible for AL's guardians to consent to that treatment. The court needed to balance the patient's expressed wishes in the directive with the necessity of providing timely and appropriate medical care. The challenge was to interpret the directive in a way that respected AL's autonomy while also ensuring their immediate health needs were met.

The court ruled that the Advance health directive did not preclude AL's guardians from consenting to the medical treatment currently needed. The directive, when correctly construed, did not explicitly refuse the treatment in question. Therefore, the court found that AL's guardians could proceed with the necessary medical interventions to address the patient's immediate health requirements. The court emphasised the importance of interpreting the directive in a manner that aligns with the patient's best interests and ensures that their health needs are met without unnecessary delay.

The final orders of the court were that the Advance health directive was not an impediment to AL's guardians providing consent for the required medical treatment. The court allowed the guardians to proceed with the necessary interventions to address AL's immediate health needs, ensuring that the patient's rights and best interests were upheld within the framework of the directive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.