Procedural History
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) conducted a hearing1 and appointed Public Advocate of Victoria, Julian Gardner as the legal guardian of BWV- first instance decision.
Gardner referred the issue to the Supreme Court of Victoria for clarification – present case
Facts
BWV, a terminally ill patient, suffers from a fatal form of dementia which medical evidence suggests has no prospect of recovery. BWV lacks cognitive capacity and all bodily functions and thus receives all nutrition and hydration via a Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) which maintains her basic reflexive functioning but does nothing to improve…show more content… Furthermore, it should be clarified further to prevent ambiguity. Instead, the law should focus on being more clear and succinct in outlining the purpose and motif of the Parliament.
c) What was the significance of the case? As a starting off point, locate and read the following journal article: Michael A Ashby and Danuta Mendelson, 'Gardner; re BWV: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding' (2004) 18(8) Medical Journal of Australia 442.
This case is significant as it highlights the many different approaches to statutory interpretation that can be taken to decipher the law. Parliament must be clear and succinct in their purpose when making legislations in order to prevent misinterpretations. This case depicts the ambiguity of certain legislations and the process of reaching the correct outcome. It also brings light to the need for law to constantly change and evolve in order to encompass our changing society. The Garner judgement emphasises on societies need to consider artificial nutrition and hydration like any other medical
