International Law
International law is a set of rules that are in place which help in solving dispute among states, multinational cooperation, and even individuals to foster good relations. Jeremy Bentham defined international laws as a system of rules that serve to regulate everyday affairs that exist between states.[1] The public international laws only have interest in matters of rights that involves nations who are members. The private international law only works to solve the individual citizens’ disputes or juridical, which has a stable relationship among the nations. International law contains statues, obligation, and properties that must be signed by all members so it can be legally binding. Ensure conflict between the states amicably resolved, the lofty and enduring solution had to advocate in courts of law binding the nations in one legal agreement. With the intervention of the United Nations, international lawyers have participated in conflict resolutions amicably. Each member nation adheres to the international court of justice indecision when faced with an international dispute.
It is also vital before examining different specific cases, a technical fabric considered. The United Nations charter demand all nations under its umbrella complies with the international laws to promote peaceful coincide. The compliance as a result of this binds one to accept the judgment of a well-thought case. This essay deals with Gardner; re BWV [2003] VSC 173 (29, May 2003) Case
Gardner; re BWV [2003] VSC 173 (29 May 2003) Case
Considering the case of Gardner, re BWV [2003] VSC 173 (29 May 2003) under the jurisdiction of The Supreme Court of Victoria, The Common Law Division dated 28th February 2003, the tribunal case. [2]
Facts on the Case
The issue here is that BMV is an older woman aged 68 years. The woman suffers from a fatal case of dementia. Neither did she have symbols of consciousness for around three years nor of recovering. The women depend on nutrients and fluids Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy (PEG), which aid only for her survival.[3]
In her case, public advocate provided her a guardian that was responsible for coming up with the verdict on her behalf concerning her medical. The petitioner litigates in the courts in search of a declaration concerning her treatment. The advocate also demands the patient to be provided with artificial nutrients and fluids for BMV. The BMW device established to provide medical treatment and not palliative care, which formed under the Medical Treatment Act (1988).[4] This parliament act meant to allow the hindered PEG by a representative agent or guardian on a patient under medical treatment.
The issue on the case
The legal issue, in this case, was an interpretation of words underlying the Medical Treatment Act of 1988. The terms here to consider while making judgment is international laws concerning palliative care and medical treatment. Other legal codes to found are of administration and guardianship, which preceded the acts in 1986. The court rejects or grand the community advocate affirmation. The court exercises its authority and makes a judgment on behalf of a parent’s patriae jurisdiction.
Reasoning on the case
The interpretation that required courts intervention is medical treatment act 1988[5] the medicals and palliative care. The court established and make a judgment on issues raised by the attorney as this is a matter of life and death. The petitioner has a right to fair treatment.
The approach of statutory interpretation
Supreme Court applied the Modern Rule of interpretation on Medical Treatment Act of 1988 which involved the mischief in interpretation act[6], thus the golden rule and the literal rule. The last two rule emphases on the phraseology of the law and look deeper beyond the ordinary meaning. These used to give a judgment on the Medical Treatment Act as evident in statutory interpretation about the case. In this concern, the framework underlying by the Medical Treatment Act 1988, is to first check if BMV’s hydration and nutrition are within the legislation definitions on medical treatment. [7]Also, if it is under this palliative care. Upon checking on these definitions, the judge works on the modification of these phrases meaning. For instance, the ordinary meaning of hydration and nutrition must continue to offer to the petitioner. The judge, therefore, has to consider the laws that talk on palliative care. The judge then determines if the case in court is under definitions of rules on palliative care or just overlaps the medical terms that have used.[8]
On the mischief rule, it focusses on the objective of the phrasing of the law. Here the provision is only determined by the judge’s view or comment. The parliament acts not cleared about the dying patient enforced to take water and food.[9] The judgment tends to get clarification by the laws of parliament. It also seeks to bring the interpretation of the act purpose and to state the legal rights of the patient or just allow a guardian or parent to decide on behalf of the ill person. In general, the judge approached the legal understanding through the Modern Rule[10].
Examples of Extrinsic sources referred by the court with its reasoning’s
It is the ethical canary that human spirit, science, and society that guided the court decisions and reasoning on making a decision. The court, through the report which endorsed that ‘we have wrongly associated artificial nutrition and hydration with natural drinks and food’ thus incorrectly connected the suppression of them. With a clear definition and clarification of water and food. The hydration and nutrition define further in court PEG as a health treatment braking the level of predictable death of BWV in her firm condition of deadly dementia, and it is not palliative care of just provision of water and food as in Medical Treatment Act of 1988.
Within the final report of “inquiry options of dying with dignity” stresses the meaning of palliative care and its literal sense. With many quotes such as including the Right of Life Victorian, which states that when death has become unavoidable, adjustment of treatment does ensure the patient gets relief and efforts to cure. These provided a basis of judgment, comparing treatment and death, which brings more medical options instead of just palliative care.
Under the Medical Treatment Act 1989 bill, which meant to protect the guardian or parents’ right to refuse treatment on behalf of the patient.[11] These enable the court to consider trusting the guardian decision as correct.
Examples Where Court Applied Principle of Interpretation
Latin maxim rule of semantic construction assisted court decision.
The judge’s assumption assists in distinguishing hydration and nutrition. He stated that the core intention was to provide water and food from its concept of the [12]. These meant that water and food should be available for oral take by a dying person. In case it was the wish of the patient to take water or food, then there could be the legislative case. Therefore, it provides the difference between medical treatment and palliative care in the PEG act.
A Case where Parties granted leave by the court and its reasoning
Catholic health Australia Inc. and right to life Australia Inc. were allowed to submit amicus mandates. This amicus gave the court an oral and written submission that helped in the interpretation of the VIC act.[13] These proposals were thought-provoking and all-inclusive that helped the court.
The ration of the case; The case helps to resolve the issue around the patient that needs palliative care. It sets the prejudice for further cases that address about an illness that is not curable.
Dicta; Mr. Burnside’s stress on Osmolyte and facilitation of artificial nutrition to BWV through PEG and how it includes mineral counts[14] for example, banana fruit.
On parliament acts, the court needs to stand advice by the idea of adding the patient water and food.
Court Ruling; hydration and nutrition through PEG to BWV is remedial action in the VIC 1988 act. Refusal of hydration and nourishment to BWV is a denial of medical treatment rather than palliative care.
Analysis of Court Ruling
I conquer with the judgment that the VIC act provides expressions on palliative care, medical treatment, and procedural concerning the issue of water and food is well interpreted. Also, considering the VIC act, the patient is only the one who can refuse medical administration, not the guardian. PEG, therefore, denies the guardian to make a decision, but administering water and food depends on the guardian. The hindered by administration and guardian act VIC which is a basis used in Victorian court on the case of BWV[15].
The legal interpretation gave the right conclusion in attaining the best decision for patient BWV and close relatives.
Victoria Act Amendment view
- Water, food, and medication administration as an Act should amend. These will prevent much confusion and various courts interpretation. Amendment will also ensure guardians and agents confined within the Guardianship and Administration Act of 1986. with a redefinition of crucial expressions within VIC 1988 act[16].
Bibliography
Berman, Audrey, Shirlee J. Snyder, Barbara Kozier, Glenore L. Erb, Tracy Lovett-Jones, Trudy Dwyer, Majella Hales, Nichole Harvey, Lorna Moxham, and Tanya Park. Kozier & Erb’s Fundamentals of Nursing Australian Edition. Melbourne: Pearson Higher Education AU, 2014.
Collier, Berna, Chris Coyne, and Karen Sullivan. Mental Capacity: Powers of Attorney and Advance Health Directives. Federation Press, 2005.
Court, Victoria. S. Victorian Reports. 1984.
Forrester, Kim, and Debra Griffiths. Essentials of Law for Health Professionals. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2010.
Hampton, Courtney, and Neera Bhatia. “Deciding For When You Can’t Decide: The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic).” Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 202.
“Re BWV; Ex parte Gardner.” Victorian Reports 7 VR (2003), 487-511. doi:10.25291/vr/7-vr-487.
Sanson, Michelle. Statutory Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2016.
Somerville, Margaret. Ethical Canary: Science, Society, and the Human Spirit. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press – MQUP, 2004.
Victoria. Parliament. Social Development Committee. Report Upon the Inquiry Into Options for Dying with Dignity: Second and Final Report. 1987.
Victorian reports. 2003.
[1] C. D. Kojouharoff and J. Bentham, “The Limits of Jurisprudence Defined,” Columbia Law Review 45, no. 6 (1945):
[2] “Re BWV; Ex parte Gardner,” Victorian Reports 7 VR (2003)
[3] “Re BWV; Ex parte Gardner,” Victorian Reports 7 VR (2003): 32
[4] Courtney Hempton and Neera Bhatia, “Deciding For When You Can’t Decide: The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic)
[5] “Re BWV; Ex parte Gardner,” Victorian Reports 7 VR (2003)
[6] Michelle Sanson, Statutory Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2016)
[7] Courtney Hempton and Neera Bhatia, “Deciding For When You Can’t Decide: The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic)
[8] Victoria. Parliament. Social Development Committee, Report Upon the Inquiry Into Options for Dying with Dignity: Second and Final Report (1987)
[9] Kim Forrester and Debra Griffiths, Essentials of Law for Health Professionals (St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences, 2010)
[10] Berna Collier, Chris Coyne, and Karen Sullivan, Mental Capacity: Powers of Attorney and Advance Health Directives (Federation Press, 2005)
[11] Victoria. S. Court, Victorian Reports (1984)
[12]provision Michelle Sanson, Statutory Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2016)
[13] Victorian reports (2003)
[14] Michelle Sanson, Statutory Interpretation (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2016)
[15] Audry Berman et al., Kozier & Erb’s Fundamentals of Nursing Australian Edition (Melbourne: Pearson Higher Education AU, 2014)
[16] Victoria. Parliament. Social Development Committee, Report Upon the Inquiry Into Options for Dying with Dignity: Second and Final Report (1987)