LE and LF v Public Guardian [2009] NSWADT 78

LE and LF v Public Guardian [2009] NSWADT 78

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm both decisions of the Public Guardian because the proposed alternative treatment had little scientific validation, involved increased risks of harm and prolonged separation from Mr A's closest family members, while the advance care plan was reasonable, lawful, ethically supported and consistent with the wishes of Mr A's wife and son.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Review of Decisions of the Public Guardian / Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; decisions under review affirmed.
Legal Topics
['review of Decisions of Public Guardian' 'post Coma Unresponsiveness' 'advance Care Plan' 'withdrawal of Life Support' 'palliative Care' 'alternative Medical Treatment' 'best Interests of Protected Person' 'family Wishes']
['guardianship' 'administrative Law' 'health Law'] ['review of Decisions of Public Guardian' 'post Coma Unresponsiveness' 'advance Care Plan' 'withdrawal of Life Support' 'palliative Care' 'alternative Medical Treatment' 'best Interests of Protected Person' 'family Wishes']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Review of Decisions of the Public Guardian / Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Public Guardian's decision to approve the Palliative Care Plan, including provision not to reconnect or unblock the PEG tube in certain circumstances, was the correct and preferable decision." "Whether the Public Guardian's decision that Mr A should not travel to China for the proposed alternative treatment was the correct and preferable decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

The correct and preferable decision was to affirm both decisions of the Public Guardian because the proposed alternative treatment had little scientific validation, involved increased risks of harm and prolonged separation from Mr A's closest family members, while the advance care plan was reasonable, lawful, ethically supported and consistent with the wishes of Mr A's wife and son.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; decisions under review affirmed.

Orders

  • ['Application for review dismissed.' 'Decisions under review affirmed.']