The ‘Common-Health’ and Beyond: New Zealand Medical Specialists and the International Medical Network, 1945–85

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-186
Author(s):  
John Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
International Medical ◽  
Medical Specialists ◽  
Medical Network ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals Tourism affects the behavioural budget of the common dolphin Delphinus sp. in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand

2008 ◽  
Vol 355 ◽  
pp. 287-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
KA Stockin ◽  
D Lusseau ◽  
V Binedell ◽  
N Wiseman ◽  
MB Orams
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Dolphin ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals Key to the common Characeae of New Zealand

1980 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 569-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Clayton ◽  
R. Wells
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
The Common

scholarly journals Cancer care decision-making and treatment consent: An observational study of patients’ and clinicians’ rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Dew ◽  
L Signal ◽  
J Stairmand ◽  
A Simpson ◽  
D Sarfati
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Specialists ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Audio Recordings ◽  
Care Decision

© The Author(s) 2018. This study identified ways in which patients and medical specialists negotiated decisions about cancer treatment by observing decision-making discussion in situ. Audio-recordings of cancer care consultations with 18 patients, their support people, and their medical specialists, including medical oncologists, radiation oncologists and surgeons were collected in different regions of New Zealand. Patients were followed up with interviews and specialists provided consultation debriefings. The interpretation of the data drew on the concepts of epistemic and deontic rights to argue that in complex consultations, such as occur in cancer care, we need to reconsider the simple dichotomy of preferred consultations styles as paternalistic or based on shared decision-making. Decision-making is a dynamic process with specialists and patients linked into networks that impact on decision-making and where rights to knowledge and rights to decision-making are interactionally negotiated. The level of information and understanding that patients desire to exercise rights needs to be reconsidered.

Family Provision in New Zealand and Australia

2020 ◽  
pp. 450-476
Author(s):  
Nicola Peart ◽  
Prue Vines
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Sex Partners ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Her Family ◽  
Reproductive Techniques ◽  
The Common ◽  
Over Time

New Zealand and Australia are named in that order in the title because New Zealand was the first to develop the discretionary family provision jurisdiction, in 1900, that now applies in New Zealand, Australia, and much of the common law world. This allows courts to make awards to family members from the estate of the deceased. Originally benefitting only the surviving spouse and children, family provision has extended the rules of eligibility in line with changes in the meaning of ‘family’. So as well as spouses, claims can also, in many of the Australasian jurisdictions, be made by civil partners, cohabitants, and same-sex partners. Most jurisdictions have also broadened the class of eligible children to include grandchildren and stepchildren who were being maintained by the deceased as well as children born of new reproductive techniques. Both New Zealand and Australia have significant indigenous populations and their eligibility to claim family provision is modified to accord with their customary law. Over time, the courts have adopted a much broader view of a deceased’s ‘moral duty’ to his or her family, particularly in regard to claims by adult children. The size of awards has increased correspondingly. The chapter discusses this development, as well as the increasing relevance of Indigenous customary law and how the courts deal with disentitling conduct. In view of the greatly expanded scope of family provision in New Zealand and Australia, testamentary freedom may be only an illusion in these jurisdictions.

The Last Decade in New Zealand Archaeology. Part II

Antiquity ◽  
1962 ◽  
Vol 36 (144) ◽  
pp. 271-278
Author(s):  
J. Golson ◽  
P. W. Gathercole
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Cultural Landscape ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Rare Type ◽  
Positive Evidence ◽  
Archaeological Data ◽  
The North ◽  
Culture History ◽  
Archaeological Materials ◽  
The Common

Clearly this is a major problem in New Zealand culture history. One of the present writers has recently outlined the problem and assembled the archaeological materials available for its solution, using excavated evidence for the Moa-hunters and, in the absence of dependable archaeological data, inferring the Maori culture traits relevant to the comparison from a variety of sources, mainly descriptions, drawings and collections made by Europeans in the early days of contact. The result has been to isolate the common elements, point out the distinguishing ones, and define the areas of our present ignorance.The latter include, besides the question of agriculture already discussed, that of warfare. Though none of the evidences to be expected for this—weapons, defensive arrangements, or cannibalism—has been found in unequivocal Moa-hunter contexts, it must be admitted that the search has been restricted. Fortified sites (pa) are a prolific feature of the North Island cultural landscape, but very few have been properly excavated. The results of such investigations as have been made are hardly conclusive, and although the argument favouring Moa-hunter fortification in the Bay of Plenty cannot now be sustained, it would be well to keep the question open. The absence of weapons from Moa-hunter sites is a factor of some importance in this argument, but the Polynesian armoury was rendered almost exclusively in wood, and only stone or bone weapons of the patu type (FIG. 8) will be commonly found in archaeological deposits. Limited excavations on six undeniably fortified sites in the Auckland province have, however, failed to uncover a single weapon. The only piece of positive evidence for Moa-hunter weapons is the Horowhenua bone patu (FIG. 7) associated in a grave with a rare type of amulet, definitely known to the Moa-hunters though not necessarily distinctive of them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document