The development of statutory law in South Australia to support advance care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of advance care planning is influenced by the relevant legislative framework. This paper describes the development of statutory law in South Australia to support palliative care and advance care planning. The presenter, a palliative medicine specialist, provides personal anecdotes about the reasons for this law reform. As with many jurisdictions, legislative evolution involved a Natural Death Act 1983. However, ongoing deficiencies in end of life care arrangements led to the formation of a Parliamentary Select Committee. This in turn led to the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act 1995. This Act made provision for written directions about care and the appointment of surrogates to make medical decisions. Written directions are limited to the terminal phase of illness, while surrogates cannot refuse the natural provision of food and fluid, medication for the relief of suffering at the end of life, or treatment that would render the patient capable of making their own decisions. This Act, the first to have ‘Palliative Care’ in its title, protects clinicians from civil or criminal liability for administering medical treatment with the intention of relieving pain or distress, ‘even though an incidental effect of treatment is to hasten the death of the patient.’ The implications of this legislation for advance care planning and clinical practice will be discussed. Evidence about the documentation of different types of advance care plans in SA will be presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".