Ending the life of the act/omission dispute: Causation in withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining measures

My aim in this paper is to challenge the increasingly common view in the literature that the law on end of life decision making is in disarray and is in need of urgent reform. My argument is that this assessment of the law is based on assumptions about the relationship between the identity of the defendant and their conduct, and about the nature of causation, which, on examination, prove to be indefensible. I then provide a clarification of the relationship between causation and omissions which proves that the current legal position does not need modification, at least on the grounds that are commonly advanced for the converse view. This enables me, in conclusion, to clarify important conceptual and moral differences between withholding, refusing and withdrawing life-sustaining measures on the one hand, and assisted suicide and euthanasia, on the other.

Finding a way through the ethical and legal maze : withdrawing medical treatment and euthanasia

This article examines Finnis' and Keown's claim that the intention/foresight distinction should be used as the basis for the lawfulness of withholding and withdrawing medical treatment, rather than the act/omission distinction which is currently used. I argue that whilst the intention/foresight distinction is sound and can apply to palliative pain relief hastening death, it cannot be applied to withholding and withdrawing medical treatment. Instead, the act/omission distinction remains the better basis for the lawfulness of withholding and withdrawal, and law reform is consequently unnecessary.

Waiver of statutory requirements : Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

One of the many difficulties associated with the drafting of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘the Act’) is the operation of s 365. If the requirements imposed by this section concerning the return of the executed contract are not complied with, the buyer and the seller will not be bound by the relevant contract and the cooling-off period will not commence. In these circumstances, it is clear that a buyer’s offer may be withdrawn. However, the drafting of the Act creates a difficulty in that the ability of the seller to withdraw from the transaction prior to the parties being bound by the contract is not expressly provided by s 365. On one view, if the buyer is able to withdraw an offer at any time before receiving the prescribed contract documentation the seller also should not be bound by the contract until this time, notwithstanding that the seller may have been bound at common law. However, an alternative analysis is that the legislative omission to provide the seller with a right of withdrawal may be deliberate given the statutory focus on buyer protection. If this analysis were correct the seller would be denied the right to withdraw from the transaction after the contract was formed at common law (that is, after the seller had signed and the fact of signing had been communicated to the buyer).

Universities, SMEs and innovation frameworks : think global, act local?

Universities are increasingly encouraged to take a leading role in economic development, particularly through innovation. Simultaneously, economic development policy itself is increasingly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), creating overlapping interactions in the roles of government policy, universities and SMEs and the processes of innovation creation and dissemination. This paper examines issues arising from these developments and relating to the key stakeholders (industry, government and universities in particular), the enabling mechanisms (network governance, relevant education, training and learning, and suitable structures), and local and cross-local links. The authors then use quantitative analysis of 450 SMEs in the UK to begin to evaluate the roles of universities and highlight areas for further theoretical development.

Disclosure under the prescribed insurance contracts regime : Section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 and consumer protection revisited

Section 35 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 requires insurers offering insurance policies in six prescribed areas "to clearly inform" prospective insureds of any departure their policies may constitute from the standard covers established by the Act and its accompanying Regulations. This prescribed insurance contracts regime was designed to remedy comprehension problems generated by the length and complexity of insurance documents and to alleviate misunderstanding over the terms and conditions of individual policies. This article examines the rationale underpinning s 35 and the prescribed insurance contracts regime and looks at the operation of the legislation with particular reference to home contents insurance in Australia. It is argued that the means whereby disclosure of derogation from standard cover may be effected largely negates the thrust of the prescribed insurance contract reform. Recommendations to address these operational deficiencies are made.