GMI [2020] NSWCATGD 6

GMI [2020] NSWCATGD 6

GMI was incapable of consenting because he was in an induced coma and intubated, and the proposed percutaneous tracheostomy under general anaesthetic was medical treatment. Although the views of GMI and his wife were unavailable, the matter was urgent and there was no certainty contact could be made. The applicant's uncontradicted evidence established that the proposed treatment was the preferred and optimal means of safely reducing sedation, liberating GMI from ventilation and aiding recovery, and that the risks were outweighed by the need to promote and maintain his health and well-being. The statutory requirements for consent were therefore satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 42 of Pt 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (nsw) Seeking Consent for Medical Treatment Under S 44(1) / Urgent Hearing and Decision on Consent to Major Medical Treatment
Outcome
Consent to the proposed medical treatment was given.
Legal Topics
['consent to Major Medical Treatment' 'capacity to Consent' 'person Responsible' 'covid 19' 'percutaneous Tracheostomy']
['guardianship' 'health Law' 'consent to Medical Treatment'] ['consent to Major Medical Treatment' 'capacity to Consent' 'person Responsible' 'covid 19' 'percutaneous Tracheostomy']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 42 of Pt 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (nsw) Seeking Consent for Medical Treatment Under S 44(1) / Urgent Hearing and Decision on Consent to Major Medical Treatment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Pt 5 of the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) applied because GMI was incapable of giving his own consent to treatment.' 'Whether the proposed percutaneous tracheostomy under general anaesthetic was medical treatment.' "Whether it was appropriate to consent to the proposed treatment and whether it was the most appropriate form of treatment for promoting and maintaining GMI's health and well-being." 'Whether the Tribunal should proceed despite the unavailability of the views of GMI and his wife as a possible person responsible.']

Ratio Decidendi

GMI was incapable of consenting because he was in an induced coma and intubated, and the proposed percutaneous tracheostomy under general anaesthetic was medical treatment. Although the views of GMI and his wife were unavailable, the matter was urgent and there was no certainty contact could be made. The applicant's uncontradicted evidence established that the proposed treatment was the preferred and optimal means of safely reducing sedation, liberating GMI from ventilation and aiding recovery, and that the risks were outweighed by the need to promote and maintain his health and well-being. The statutory requirements for consent were therefore satisfied.

Court Disposition

Consent to the proposed medical treatment was given.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal consents to the following medical treatment being provided to GMI: Percutaneous tracheostomy under general anaesthetic and any necessary treatment that would normally be provided in association with or directly consequent upon the above treatment.' 'This consent is effective for a period of seven (7)...