The late discovery of adoptive and donor insemination offspring status : ethical implications for conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle

Late discovery is a term used to describe the experience of discovering the truth of one’s genetic origins as an adult. Following discovery, late discoverers face a lack of recognition and acknowledgment of their concerns from family, friends, community and institutions. They experience pain, anger, loss, grief and frustration. This presentation shares the findings of the first qualitative study of both late discovery of adoptive and donor insemination offspring (heterosexual couple use only) experiences. It is also the first study of late discovery experiences undertaken from an ethical perspective. While this study recruited new participants, it also included an ethical re-analysis of existing late discovery accounts across both practices. The findings of this study (a) draws links between past adoption and current donor insemination (heterosexual couple only) practices, (b) reveals that late discoverers are demanding acknowledgment and recognition of the particularity of their experiences, and (c) offers insights into conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle. These insights derive from the lived experiences of those whose biological and social worlds have been sundered and secrecy and denial of difference used to conceal this. It suggests that acknowledging the equal moral status of the child may be useful in strengthening conceptual understandings of the ‘best interests of the child’ principle. This equal moral status involves ensuring that personal autonomy and the ability to exercise free will is protected; that the integrity of the relationships of trust expected and demanded between parent/s and children is defended and supported; and that equal access to normative socio-cultural practices, that is; non-fictionalised birth certificates and open records, is guaranteed.

The Best interests duty in the future of financial advice reforms : striking a balance between certainty and flexibility

Presentation delivered to the Australian and New Zealand Consumer Law Roundtable held at the University of Melbourne Law School on Friday, 16 November 2012. The paper covers the background to the 'Future of Financial Advice' reforms and their context. In addition to this the scope of best interests duty is discussed. The paper concludes with an assessment of the likely effectives of best interest duty as a consumer protection measure.

Is providing elective ventilation in the best interests of potential donors?

In this paper, we examine the lawfulness of a proposal to provide elective ventilation to incompetent patients who are potential organ donors. Under the current legal framework, this depends on whether the best interests test could be satisfied. It might be argued that, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (UK) (and the common law) makes it clear that the best interests test is not confined to the patient's clinical interests, but extends to include the individual's own values, wishes and beliefs, the proposal will be in the patient's best interests. We reject this claim. We argue that, as things currently stand, the proposal could not lawfully be justified as a blanket proposition by reference to the best interests test. Accordingly, a modification of the law would be necessary to render the proposal lawful. We conclude with a suggestion about how that could be achieved.

The effectiveness of the best interests duty : enhancing consumer protection?

This article considers the uncertainty surrounding the scope of the best interests duty which forms part of the Government’s Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms. It is likely to be many years before the courts can interpret and clarify the content of the duty. Under the new regime, the provision of personal financial advice will be made more difficult, complex and costly and these costs will be passed on to consumers. The article also considers whether there will still be scope for delivering standardized, non-tailored advice in the light of the best interests duty. In the pas standardized advice has allowed large amounts of low-level, generic advice to be delivered very efficiently. In order to avoid breaching the best interests duty standardized advice should only be used rarely, and only after a careful assessment has been made to ensure that a standardized approach is appropriate.

“Best interests” and withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from an adult who lacks capacity in the parens patriae jurisdiction

Disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment are increasingly coming before Australian Supreme Courts. Such cases are generally heard in the parens patriae jurisdiction where the test applied is what is in the patient’s “best interests”. However, the application of the “best interests” test, and its meaning, remains unclear in this context. To shed light on this emerging body of jurisprudence, this article analyses the Australian superior court decisions that consider an adult’s best interests in the context of decisions about life-sustaining treatment. We identify a number of themes from the current body of cases and consider how these themes may guide future decision-making. After then considering the law in the United Kingdom, we suggest an approach for assessing best interests that could be adopted by Australian Supreme Courts. We argue that the suggested approach will lead to a more structured and systematic decision-making process that better promotes the best interests of the patient.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests : Australian judicial deliberations

•Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. •A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's “best interests”. Yet what this term means is contested. •There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. •Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

Management renewal? Consequences of the new conception of the “best interests of the corporation” in North American and French Corporate Law

Corporate law integrates a stakeholder conception through the comprehensive meaning of the best interests of the corporation. In this paper, I address criticisms about classical definition of the firm’s purpose. Even if American law is more discreet and uncertain, it is possible to defend a broad conception of the best interests of the corporation. The interests of Canadian and French firms include their partners. While the notion of intérêt social is debatable in France, Canada has recently modified its point of view regarding the purpose of the firm. Indeed, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada Magasins à rayons Peoples Inc. (Syndic de) v. Wise in 2004 changed the concept of corporate law. With respect to fiduciary duties, the Supreme Court set aside the traditional interpretation of the “best interests of the corporation” which gave primacy to shareholders’ interests. The Court held that the expression “best interests of the corporation” refers to the maximization of the corporation’s value. This innovative vision of the best interest of the corporation introduces stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR) into corporate law and provides a new field for the firm’s management to frame their responsibilities. This paper concludes with an extended discussion of the implications of stakeholder and CSR influence for the future of corporate law, economy and financial researches.

In whose interests? The best interests principle under ethical scrutiny

This paper critically examines the best interests principle and its role in making decisions about intensive care treatment. In current practice the best interests principle is sometimes relied upon to guide decision making in circumstances when the patient is incompetent, although it is intrinsically linked to inconsistent assumptions about what is meant by quality of life. This situation means that there is potential that moral errors will be made that may result in an unwanted extension of life for some individuals or the premature death of others.

It is difficult to justify such decision making on ethical grounds. A greater understanding of the best interests principle, and consequently the concept of quality of life, is needed in order to ensure that decision making about intensive care is ethically defensible. It is argued that an ideal theory of quality of life provides an appropriate framework for best interests decisions, and that the decision making process ought to, whenever possible, involve the patient's close family.

The best interests of the child? The stolen generation in Canada and Australia

Key cases in Australia and Canada dealing with litigation undertaken by members of the stolen generations - considers vicarious liability, non-delegable duties and duty of care - while plaintiffs in leading Canadian cases were successful under at least one of their heads of claim, there were inconsistencies - Crown's liability for the Aboriginal residential school experience is unresolved - key Australian decisions where plaintiffs' claims against the Crown for vicarious liability and breaches of duty of care were rejected.