RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Professional Conduct and Making Decisions for Minors Bernadette Richards & Cameron Stewart Received: 29 November 2012 / Accepted: 5 December 2012 / Published online: 24 January 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Keywords Professionalism . Consent . Organ donation . Do not resuscitate Unprofessional Conduct and Professional Misconduct of Health Care Professionals The regulatory framework of health care professionals in Australia was, until 2010, a matter of individual state and territory discretion. In 2006, the Council of Austra- lian Governments (COAG) reached an agreement, and all jurisdictions began to move toward a national regu- latory scheme (see ch 15 in White, McDonald, and Willmott 2010). This scheme is now a reality 1 and some recent tribunal activity has provided valuable insight into the expectations of professional conduct (and mis- conduct) under the national scheme. These decisions are worth consideration, as they draw a distinction between unprofessional conduct and professional misconduct and provide guidance on the role of the professional boards and tribunals under the national scheme. 2 In a recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), the defini- tion of professional conduct and professional mis- conduct under the National Act was considered. Pharmacy Board of Australia v The Registrant [2012] QCAT 515 required the Tribunal to consid- er the actions of the registrant, a well-established pharmacist, with regards to the record-keeping and distribution of pseudoephedrine (PSE). PSE is a Schedule 3, Pharmacists only Poison under the Health ( Drugs and Poisons ) Regulation 1996 (Qld) ([13]) and is therefore subject to strict con- trols on the amount that is kept by the pharmacy at any one time (this was exceeded) and to spe- cific requirements on the keeping of a register and reporting of access (neither of these was done appropriately). The registrant did not dispute any of this and accepted that he had not acted in an appropriate or professional manner. The point to be drawn from this decision is the discussion regarding what constitutes professional misconduct Bioethical Inquiry (2013) 10:11–15 DOI 10.1007/s11673-012-9410-y 2 The national scheme comes under the umbrella of the Austra- lian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), and there are currently 14 health care professions covered: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health practice, Chinese medicine, chiro- practic, dental, medical, medical radiation, nursing and midwife- ry, occupational therapy, optometry, osteopathy, pharmacy, podiatry, and psychology. 1 Each jurisdiction has adopted the national law as contained in Schedule 1 of the Queensland Act. South Australia is the only jurisdiction to introduce separate, mirror legislation, which is found in Schedule 2 of the South Australian Act: Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2010 (ACT) s 6, Health Practitioner Regulation (Adoption of National Law) Act 2009 (NSW) s 4, Health Practitioner (National Uniform Leg- islation) Implementation Act 2012 (NT) s 4, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) Schedule 1, Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA) Schedule 2, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010 (Tas) s 4, Health Practitioner Regu- lation National Law (Victoria) Act 2009 (Vic) s 4, Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) s 4. B. Richards (*) University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia e-mail: bernadette.richards@adelaide.edu.au C. Stewart Centre for Health Governance Law and Ethics, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia C. Stewart e-mail: cameron.stewart@sydney.edu.au