A bad trip for health-related human rights: implications of Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 957.

Momcilovic v The Queen (2011) 85 ALJR 957; [2011] HCA 34 arose from a prosecution for drug trafficking brought under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). The Australian High Court held that the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) (the Charter) validly conferred a power on the Victorian Supreme Court and Court of Appeal to interpret legislation in a manner consistent with a defined list of human rights. By a slim majority it also held that the Charter validly created a judicial power to "declare" a law inconsistent with one or more enumerated human rights.

Withdrawing treatment at the direct or indirect request of patients or in their best interests: HNEAHS v A; Brightwater CG v Rossiter; and Australian Capital Territory v JT.

In Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A [2009] NSWSC 761; Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229; and Australian Capital Territory v JT [2009] ACTSC 105 Australian courts have recently considered the circumstances in which technically futile treatment may be withdrawn from patients at their direct or indirect request or purportedly in their best interests. The cases provide many valuable lessons about how norms of ethics, law and international human rights shape the regulatory framework of this area of health care in Australia.

Constitutional limits on federal legislation practically compelling medical employment: Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee.

A recent decision by the High Court of Australia (Wong v Commonwealth; Selim v Professional Services Review Committee (2009) 236 CLR 573) (the PSR case) has not only clarified the scope of the Australian constitutional prohibition on "any form of civil conscription" in relation to federal legislation concerning medical or dental services (s 51xxiiiA), but has highlighted its importance as a great constitutional guarantee ensuring the mixed State-federal and public-private nature of medical service delivery in Australia. Previous decisions of the High Court have clarified that the prohibition does not prevent federal laws regulating the manner in which medical services are provided. The PSR case determined that the anti-overservicing provisions directed at bulk-billing general practitioners under Pt VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) did not offend the prohibition.

Recent legal developments and the authority of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration.

Recent legal developments have highlighted the need for greater support from the Federal Government for the authority of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to ensure, by pre-approval assessments and post-approval regulation, the safety of listed medicines in Australia. One of these developments concerns the impact of ongoing civil litigation in Australian courts led by Pan Pharmaceuticals stakeholders to recover compensation from the government for the losses they incurred following the TGA's post-listing shut-down of that pharmaceutical manufacturing company in 2003. Another factor is the recently announced governmental policy to outsource to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) safety assessments of foreign drug manufacturers whose products will be used in Australia.