Is Japan losing the fight against smoke-free legislation?

The BMJ Opinion, 24 October 2017
Author: Yusuke Tsugawa, Ken Hashimoto et al
“The WHO published a report earlier this year on the global tobacco epidemic in which it reported that comprehensive smoke-free legislation is in place to protect approximately 1.5 billion people in 55 countries. Currently, as many as 168 countries—including Japan—have signed the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, Japan’s tobacco policy lags behind the FCTC’s standard and is currently ranked the lowest level for smoke-free policy in the world.”
Find article here.

Assisted dying is one thing, but governments must ensure palliative care is available to all who need it

The Conversation, 24 October 2017
Author: Stephen Duckett
“Assisted dying moved one step closer to reality in Victoria last week with the authorising bill passing the lower house with a comfortable 47-37 majority. Throughout the debate, many MPs spoke of terrible personal experiences of the deaths of family members. Such harrowing stories were also present in submissions to the parliamentary inquiry into end-of-life choices, that recommended an assisted dying regime leading to the bill.”
Find article here.

Round table: The Moral Mandate of Public Health – Back to Basics

European Journal of Public Health, Volume 27, Issue suppl_3, 2017
Chairs: John Middleton, Els Maeckelberghe
“The core mission of Public Health is to protect and promote health through the organized efforts of society. The use of political power to achieve public health goals, and the imperatives to improve health and reduce health inequalities, suggest an inherently moral agenda, and thus require a sound moral mandate. However, concerns have arisen about a lack of unified vision and leadership within Public Health, with consequent concerns about heightened threats to the health of the public.”
Find article here.

Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act: 20 Years of Experience to Inform the Debate

Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(8):579-583.
Authors: Katrina Hedberg, Craig New
“Twenty years ago, Oregon voters approved the Death With Dignity Act, making Oregon the first state in the United States to allow physicians to prescribe medications to be self-administered by terminally ill patients to hasten their death. This report summarizes the experience in Oregon, including the numbers and types of participating patients and providers. These data should inform the ongoing policy debate as additional jurisdictions consider such legislation.”
Find article here.

 

IN THE MATTER OF ED (Mental Health) [2017] ACAT 84

Decision date: 18 October 2017
“MENTAL HEALTH – authorisation of short-term involuntary detention for immediate treatment, care or support – statutory preconditions for initial detention by a doctor for 3 days – Tribunal order extending the period of involuntary detention for a period not longer than an additional 11 days – Tribunal review of involuntary detention under section 85 of the Mental Health Act – relevant conditions and when they must apply for exercise of discretionary power.”
Find decision here.

Newly controversial opioid enforcement law under fire

The Hill, 17 October 2017
Author: Rachel Roubein
“Several lawmakers are pushing to repeal or revisit a law critics say enables the flow of deadly and addictive opioids, hours after President Trump’s drug czar nominee withdrew his name amid the controversy.”
Find article here.

How should the government overhaul mental health laws?

The Guardian, 10 October 2017
Author: Saba Salman
“The promise to overhaul the Mental Health Act 1983 is one of the few Conservative party manifesto pledges to survive the election. The decision to reform the act, which appeared in the Queen’s speech in June, means the government is committed to taking steps to overhaul the legislation in the next 12 months.”
Find article here.

Is there a place for CPR and sustained physiological support in brain-dead non-donors?

Journal of Medical Ethics 2017; 43: 679-683.
Author: Stephen D Brown
“The paper first focuses narrowly on requests for CPR and then expands its scope to address extended physiological support. It describes how refusing the brain-dead non-donor’s requests for either CPR or extended support would represent enduring harm to the antemortem or previously autonomous individual by negating their beliefs and self-identity. The paper subsequently discusses potential implications of policy that would allow greater accommodations to those with conscientious objections to currently accepted brain-based death criteria, such as for cost, insurance, higher brain formulations and bedside communication. The conclusion is that granting wider latitude to personal conceptions around the definition of death, rather than forcing a contested definition on those with valid moral and religious objections, would benefit both individuals and society.”
Find article here.