All Australian Supreme Courts and the New Zealand High Court have this power and disputes between parties regarding the patient’s best interests are often resolved there. In Australia, each state and territory also has guardianship tribunals which deal with these

matters. Generally speaking, the law does not obligate a nephrologist to provide treatment that they believe is of no benefit to the patient. Nor must they treat when any benefit is outweighed by the burdens of the treatment. In making an assessment of the patient’s best interests it is best practice to confer with the substitute decision-makers, to gather as much evidence as possible about the patient and the patient’s desires concerning dialysis. In Queensland, Western Navitoclax mouse Australia and South Australia legislation requires that substitute decision-makers give their consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining dialysis. In cases where a patient is competent, the decision regarding the administration of dialysis must be made by the patient. If it is shown that substitute decision-makers have exerted undue influence on the patient and forced them to consent or refuse dialysis, that decision may be held to be invalid. In cases where the patient is PD-332991 incompetent and has made no advance directive, substitute decision-makers do not have a legal

right to demand dialysis which is not in the patient’s best interests. In such cases it is best practice to have sought second opinions relating to the patient’s diagnosis and prognosis, and to have attempted to mediate with the substitute decision-makers to try and reach a consensus. If arguments arise between substitute decision-makers and clinicians that cannot be resolved, both the clinicians and/or the substitute decision-makers have the right to seek orders from a court or tribunal. Medical negligence arises when it can be shown that Cyclin-dependent kinase 3 a doctor’s behaviour fell below a standard of care, and that breach caused the patient harm. In any action in negligence, the

court would require that the patient prove, on the balance of probabilities, that: the nephrologist owed a duty of care to the patient. The nature of a doctor-patient relationship would automatically satisfy this criteria; the nephrologist breached that duty to the patient. Here the court will look to see if the nephrologist acted in accordance competently. This is assessed by reference to peer professional opinion. If it can be shown that other nephrologists would have also withheld or withdrawn the treatment then the standard of care has been satisfied; and the breach caused damage or harm to the plaintiff. If the actions of a nephrologist in withholding dialysis or withdrawing from dialysis are supported by peer professional opinion, then it is highly unlikely that a successful action in negligence would occur. No. Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act with the intention to end a person’s life in the context of a serious illness.