Search

In most developed countries, competent patients have the legal right to refuse any medical treatment; Advance Care Planning mechanisms extend this right to non-competent patients. However, some groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people, risk their wishes not being respected if they lose capacity, more than others. Little is known about medical practitioners' knowledge of, or attitudes to, the law in this area, especially in relation to LGBTI people, or how the law influences their decision-making. An Australian postal survey explored knowledge and attitudes of medical specialists to legal issues relating to withdrawing/ withholding life-sustaining treatment from adults without capacity. One scenario (the focus of this paper) asked which of four plausible substitute decision-makers, including a same-sex partner, had the legal authority to make such decisions. The overall response rate was 32% (867/2702). Less than one-third of respondents correctly identified the same-sex partner as the legally authorised decision-maker. LGBTI people face multiple obstacles to having their end-of-life wishes respected. Where healthcare providers are also ignorant of the partner's legal right to make such decisions, the problem is compounded. Improved legal education for clinicians and promotion of educational resources for members of the LGBTI community is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is based on a study exploring the experiences of men with refugee backgrounds from Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia (herein referred to as the Horn of Africa countries) during migration and on settlement in Australia. During data analyses, Plummer's concept of ‘intimate citizenship’ became a useful theoretical framework for understanding participants' experiences. Many men had migrated from traditional societies where individuals pursue intimacies within a constrained framework of acceptability dictated by collective cultures. Ravaged by civil wars, they were forced to flee their homelands and seek asylum in neighbouring countries. Eventually, these men were resettled in Australia, a society that provides a social space for individuals to exercise more choices in their personal lives. On arrival in Australia, participants in this study had to adjust to these new ways of pursuing intimate relationships. Some men found this process overwhelmingly difficult while others saw it as an opportunity to organise their intimate lives beyond the confines of traditions and cultures as well as family and community influences. Intimate citizenship helped in construing the opportunities, conflicts, tensions and ambivalences that characterised participants' experiences in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]