Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter

In the matter of Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter, the dispute centred around the legal obligations of a medical service provider, Brightwater Care Group, who had assumed responsibility for the care of a quadriplegic patient, Mr Rossiter. The patient, who was mentally competent, directed Brightwater Care Group to discontinue the provision of nutrition and general hydration, an action which would result in his death from starvation. Additionally, he requested a prescription of analgesics to manage sedation and pain as he approached death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the court was required to determine whether Brightwater Care Group had any legal obligations to continue the provision of nutrition and hydration against the wishes of Mr Rossiter.

The court was tasked with interpreting the common law principles relating to the provision of medical treatment, particularly in relation to the principle of autonomy and self-determination. It was necessary to consider whether a mentally competent patient has the right to determine whether or not they will continue to receive medical treatment. Furthermore, the court needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions, particularly those found in the Criminal Code (WA), to determine whether Brightwater Care Group had a duty to provide necessaries of life under section 262. The court also had to interpret the term 'having charge' of another and consider the meaning of surgical and medical treatment within the context of section 259. Amendments made by the Acts Amendment (Consent to Medical Treatment) Act 2008 (WA) were also relevant to the interpretation of the law.

The court found that Mr Rossiter, being mentally competent, had the right to determine whether or not he would continue to receive medical treatment. It held that Brightwater Care Group had no legal obligation to provide nutrition and hydration against his wishes. The court also found that the provision of such treatment would not constitute a breach of any statutory duty under section 262 of the Criminal Code (WA). The court held that Brightwater Care Group was not 'having charge' of Mr Rossiter in the relevant sense and that the administration of palliative care, including the prescription of analgesics, was within the ambit of the patient's autonomy and self-determination. The court further held that the provision of such palliative care would not be criminal under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code (WA). Ultimately, the court granted the declaratory relief sought by Brightwater Care Group.