Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated how a stochastic disruptive event can dramatically alter community soundscapes. Whilst religious bells have symbolism in many worldwide faiths, the sound emanating from church bells can be considered public domain and therefore, is not exclusive to the church. Pandemic-related interruption of these sounds impacts not only the church involved, but both the surrounding soundscape and any members of the community who ascribe value to these sounds. This paper examines the soundscape of Christian churches in the states of New South Wales and Victoria, to give an Australian perspective one year after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. It provides an update of the situation in Australia, building on our previous work from August of that year. In doing so, it explores the activity of church tower bell ringing, and how this "non-essential" activity has been affected, both during and subsequent to the heavy community restrictions applied in Australia. The paper also explores what lengths bellringers have undertaken to be permitted to conduct such activities, such as the use of adaptive measures due to "social distancing", and considers what implications this enforced silence has in similar soundscapes elsewhere in the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Law purports to regulate end-of-life care but its role in decision-making by doctors is not clear. This paper, which is part of a three-year study into the role of law in medical practice at the end of life, investigates whether law affects doctors' decision-making. In particular, it considers whether the fact that the law differs across Australia's three largest states - New South Wales (NSW), Victoria and Queensland - leads to doctors making different decisions about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of the seven specialties most likely to be involved in end-of-life care in the acute setting was conducted between 18 July 2012 and 31 January 2013. The sample comprised all medical specialists in emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care, medical oncology, palliative medicine, renal medicine and respiratory medicine on the AMPCo Direct database in those three Australian states. The survey measured medical specialists' level of legal compliance, and reasons for their decisions, concerning the withholding or withdrawal of lifesustaining treatment. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine predictors of legal compliance. Linear regression was used to examine associations between the decision about life-sustaining treatment and the relevance of factors involved in making these decisions, as well as state differences in these associations. Results: Response rate was 32% (867/2702). A majority of respondents in each state said that they would provide treatment in a hypothetical scenario, despite an advance directive refusing it: 72% in NSW and Queensland; 63% in Victoria. After applying differences in state law, 72% of Queensland doctors answered in accordance with local law, compared with 37% in Victoria and 28% in NSW (p < 0.001). Doctors reported broadly the same decision-making approach despite differences in local law. Conclusions: Law appears to play a limited role in medical decision-making at the end of life with doctors prioritising patient-related clinical and ethical considerations. Different legal frameworks in the three states examined did not lead to different decisions about providing treatment. More education is needed about law and its role in this area, particularly where law is inconsistent with traditional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]