The role of legal coercion in the treatment of offenders with alcohol and heroin problems

This article discusses the ethical justification for and reviews the American evidence on the effectiveness of; treatment for alcohol and heroin dependence that is provided under legal coercion to offenders whose alcohol and drug dependence has contributed to the commission of the offence with which they have been charged or convicted. The article focuses on legally coerced treatment for drink-driving offenders and heroin-dependent property offenders. it outlines the various arguments that have been made for providing such treatment under legal coercion, namely. the over-representation of alcohol and drug dependent persons in prison populations; the contributory causal role of alcohol and other drug problems in the offences that lead to their imprisonment; the high rates of relapse to drug use and criminal involvement after incarceration; the desirability of keeping injecting heroin users out of prisons as a way of reducing the transmission of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis; and the putatively greater cost-effectiveness of treatment compared with incarceration. The ethical objections to legally coerced drug treatment are briefly discussed before the evidence on the effectiveness of legally coerced treatment for alcohol and other drug dependence is reviewed. The evidence, which is primarily from the USA, gives qualified support for some forms of legally coerced drug treatment provided that these programs are well resourced, carefully implemented, and their performance is monitored to ensure that they provide a humane and effective alternative to imprisonment. Expectations about what these programs can achieve also need to be realistic.

Reflecting on ethical and legal issues in wildlife disease

Disease in wildlife raises a number of issues that have not been widely considered in the bioethical literature. However, wildlife disease has major implications for human welfare. The majority of emerging human infectious diseases are zoonotic: that is, they occur in humans by cross-species transmission from animal hosts. Managing these diseases often involves balancing concerns with human health against animal welfare and conservation concerns. Many infectious diseases of domestic animals are shared with wild animals, although it is often unclear whether the infection spills over from wild animals to domestic animals or vice versa. Culling is the standard means of managing such diseases, bringing economic considerations, animal welfare and conservation into conflict. Infectious diseases are also major threatening processes in conservation biology and their appropriate management by culling, vaccination or treatment raises substantial animal ethics issues. One particular issue of great significance in Australia is an ongoing research program to develop genetically modified pathogens to control vertebrate pests including rabbits, foxes and house mice. Release of any self-replicating GMO vertebrate pathogen gives rise to a whole series of ethical questions. We briefly review current Australian legal responses to these problems. Finally, we present two unresolved problems of general importance that are exemplified by wildlife disease. First, to what extent can or should 'bioethics' be broadened beyond direct concerns with human welfare to animal welfare and environmental welfare? Second, how should the irreducible uncertainty of ecological systems be accounted for in ethical decision making?

Legal profession reform in Queensland

Legal reforms in Queensland: Queensland's Legal Profession Act came into force on 1 July 2004 and is a step in reorganising and modernising the regulation of the profession - development of an Australia-wide move towards improving conditions for national legal practice - central vehicle for national legal practice is a recommended bill of Model Laws - aspects of Model Laws have not been adopted in the Act and are expected to be adopted in a third stage of reforms.

Ethics and intervention: The 'humanitarian exception' and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq

This article investigates the ethics of intervention and explores the decision to invade Iraq. It begins by arguing that while positive international law provides an important framework for understanding and debating the legitimacy of war, it does not cover the full spectrum of moral reasoning on issues of war and peace. To that end, after briefly discussing the two primary legal justifications for war (implied UN authorization and pre-emptive self-defence), and finding them wanting, it asks whether there is a moral 'humanitarian exceptions to this rule grounded in the 'just war' tradition. The article argues that two aspects of the broad tradition could be used to make a humanitarian case for war: the 'holy war' tradition and classical just war thinking based on natural law. The former it finds problematic, while the latter it argues provides a moral space to justify the use of force to halt gross breaches of natural law. Although such an approach may provide a moral justification for war, it also opens the door to abuse. It was this very problem that legal positivism from Vattel onwards was designed to address. As a result, the article argues that natural law and legal positivist arguments should be understood as complementary sets of ideas whose sometimes competing claims must be balanced in relation to particular cases. Therefore, although natural law may open a space for justifying the invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms, legal positivism strictly limits that right. Ignoring this latter fact, as happened in the Iraq case, opens the door to abuse.

The UN Security Council and the question of humanitarian intervention in Darfur

This article explores the different moral and legal arguments used by protagonists in the debate about whether or not to conduct a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. The first section briefly outlines four moral and legal positions on whether there is (and should be) a right and/or duty of humanitarian intervention: communitarianism, restrictionist and counter-restrictionist legal positivism and liberal cosmopolitanism. The second section then provides an overview of the Security Council's debate about responding to Darfur's crisis, showing how its policy was influenced by both normative concerns and hard-nosed political calculations. The article concludes by asking what Darfur's case reveals about the legitimacy and likelihood of humanitarian intervention in such catastrophes and the role of the UN Security Council as the primary authorising body for the use of international force. The authors argue that this case demonstrates that for the cosmopolitan/counter-restrictionist case to prevail pivotal states need to put humanitarian emergencies on the global agenda and express a willingness to act without Council authorisation, though the question of how to proceed in cases where the Council is deadlocked remains vexed.