Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 153–158 | Cite as

Recent Developments

  • Cameron StewartEmail author

End-of-Life Decisions in NSW: The Saga Continues

Readers of earlier columns will recall the decision in WK v Public Guardian (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 121, where the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (NSWADT) found that a guardian could not make a decision to withdraw treatment, as managed withdrawal of treatment was found not to promote or maintain health and wellbeing as required by the Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW) (Stewart 2006). The patient in question was 73 year-old man with end-stage kidney disease, advanced heart disease, dementia and bowel cancer, who was receiving haemodialysis. A decision was made by his treating physician, the patient’s sister-in-law and other relatives and friends, to stop the dialysis and give palliative care. However, a friend of the patient, WK, objected to the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision was referred to the NSW Guardianship Tribunal. The Tribunal appointed the Public Guardian as guardian. The Public Guardian, amongst other things,...


Palliative Care Intellectual Disability Advance Care Plan Borderline Personality Disorder Restrictive Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Stewart, C. 2006. Problems with substitute medical decision-making in NSW. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3: 127–131. doi: 10.1007/s11673-006-9020-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Stewart, C. 2007. More on substitute medical decision-making in New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4: 81–83. doi: 10.1007/s11673-007-9052-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney Law SchoolUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations