Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 467–471 | Cite as

Regulating “Quack” Medicine and Decision-Making For Children Re-visited

  • Bernadette Richards
  • Michaela E. Okninski
Recent Developments (Invite Only)

Regulating “Quack” Medicine:Inquest Into the Death of Sheila Drysdale,2013/383970, 15/07/2016

Introduction

We live in a world where we are finding it increasingly difficult to accept that we cannot cure every disease, and death itself represents the last great frontier to be if not defeated, at least controlled. When we place this alongside the increasing pace of technological advancement and the broad perception that new and innovative equates with better, we find fertile ground for the development of “quack” medicine which promises hope when there simply is none. It was this precise environment that gave rise to the circumstances around the death of Sheila Drysdale following unproven stem cell treatment for advanced dementia. At this point the only legal discussion around her death are the findings of Coroners’ Court of New South Wales, delivered on 15th July 2016 (Inquest into the death of Sheila Drysdale,2013/383970, 15/07/2016). This decision is worth considering as it raises...

Keywords

Innovative treatment Consent Vulnerable patients Best interests Quality of life 

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law School, University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations