We Need to Talk About Rationing: The Need to Normalize Discussion About Healthcare Rationing in a Post COVID-19 Era.

The global COVID-19 pandemic has brought the issue of rationing finite healthcare resources to the fore. There has been much academic debate, media attention, and conversation in the homes of everyday individuals about the allocation of medical resources, diagnostic testing kits, ventilators, and personal protective equipment. Yet decisions to prioritize treatment for some individuals over others occur implicitly and explicitly in everyday practices. The pandemic has propelled the socially taboo and unavoidably prickly issue of healthcare rationing into the public spotlight-and as such, healthcare rationing demands ongoing public attention and transparent discussion. This article concludes that in the aftermath of COVID-19, policymakers should work towards normalizing rationing discussions by engaging in transparent and honest debate in the wider community and public domain. Further, injecting greater openness and objectivity into rationing decisions might go some way towards dismantling the societal taboo surrounding rationing in healthcare.

Deciding For When You Can't Decide: The Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic).

The Australian state of Victoria introduced new legislation regulating medical treatment and associated decision-making in March 2018. In this article we provide an overview of the new Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2016 (Vic) and compare it to the former (now repealed) Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic). Most substantially, the new Act provides for persons with relevant decision-making capacity to make decisions in advance regarding their potential future medical care, to take effect in the event they themselves do not have decision-making capacity. Prima facie, the new Act enshrines autonomy as the pre-eminent value underlying the state's approach to medical treatment decision-making and associated surrogate decision-making. However, we contend that the intention of the Act may not accord with implementation of the Act to date if members of the community are not aware of the Act's provisions or are not engaged in advance care planning. There is a need for further research, robust community advocacy, and wider engagement for the intention of the Act-the promotion of "precedent autonomy" in respect to surrogate medical treatment decision-making-to be fully realized.

Cutting the cord: Can society over-invest in extremely premature and critically impaired neonates?

This article provides a critical examination of the allocation of scarce public health care funds in relation to extremely premature and sick neonates. Decisions to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment from neonates born extremely premature are generally informed by arbitrary and often subjective considerations of those involved in their care--namely parents and medical practitioners. This article argues for a sharp and immediate focus in decisions to treat such neonates based on the allocation of limited health care resources. Accordingly, decisions to save and preserve the lives of imperilled neonates should not be limited to the immediate financial costs of medical treatment. More explicitly there should be a full appreciation of the cost of disability to the family requirements for long-term care, and the benefits and associated costs of life, not only to the patient, but also to society.