scholarly journals Future of assisted dying reform in Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben White ◽  
Lindy Willmott

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic) will come into force in June 2019, becoming the first law in Australia in 20 years to permit voluntary assisted dying (VAD). This paper considers how other Australian states and territories are likely to respond to this development. It analyses three key factors that suggest that law reform is likely to occur in other parts of Australia: (1) the growing international trend to permit VAD; (2) social science evidence about how VAD regimes operate; and (3) changes to the local political environment. The paper argues that these three factors, coupled with the effect of Victoria changing its law, suggest that other VAD law reform is likely to occur in Australia. It also considers the different types of laws that may be adopted, including whether other states and territories will follow the very conservative Victorian approach or adopt more liberal models. What is known about the topic? Despite sustained law reform efforts in parliaments across the country, Victoria is the first Australian jurisdiction to pass a law permitting VAD in 20 years. What does this paper add? This paper addresses likely future trends in VAD law reform in Australia. Drawing on international developments, a growing body of social science evidence about how VAD regimes work in practice, and evidence about a changing local political environment, the paper argues that other states and territories in Australia will also enact laws about VAD. What are the implications for practitioners? The legalisation of VAD has significant implications for health professionals, health administrators and health systems. Understanding how reform may occur and what legal models may be considered supports participation in the law reform process and preparation for likely change.

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110112
Author(s):  
Anna High

Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-328
Author(s):  
Hatsuru MORITA

AbstractCorporate law shapes the fundamental business environment and affects various stakeholders. It is possible to determine the behaviour of various stakeholders by examining the politics of the reform process of corporate law. In order to understand the process, this paper uses the notice-and-comment procedure (public-comment procedure). Under this procedure, people submit comments to the Ministry of Justice; some of the comments are reflected in the final Bill, while others are not. The paper performs a quantitative analysis of a hand-collected dataset from two recent public-comment procedures on corporate law reform. The results showed that the bureaucrats are rigid and not willing to take public comments seriously. However, on some technical issues, legal academics, and legal professionals influence the behaviour of the bureaucrats. In addition, the bureaucrats employed these comments to honour the technical views of professionals. In other cases, corporate managers significantly influence the reform process.


2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Nowlin

Monahan and Walker have proposed that American judges should fundamentally alter the way they receive and assess social science evidence in court, by treating social science research as “law-like” or authoritative when certain professional research criteria are met. Strict application of the stipulated criteria to various kinds of social science research introduced into American and Canadian courts reveals, however, that such research can seldom be considered authoritative in the way Monahan and Walker imagine. Accordingly, as a general rule judges should be reluctant to apply Monahan and Walker’s “social authority” model to the courtroom resolution of difficult questions of social, economic, and cultural or historical facts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document