Medical negligence, causation and 'exceptional cases' under the civil liability legislation

Under the civil liability legislation enacted in most Australian jurisdictions, factual causation will be established if, on the balance of probabilities, the claimant can prove that the defendant's negligence was 'a necessary condition of the occurrence of the [claimant's] harm'. Causation will then be satisfied by showing that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of their duty of care. However, in an exceptional or appropriate case, sub-section 2 of the legislation provides that if the 'but for' test is not met, factual causation may instead be determined in accordance with other 'established principles'. In such a case, 'the court is to consider (amongst other relevant things) whether or not and why responsibility for the harm should be imposed' on the negligent party.

What’s law got to do with it?: Medical negligence, causation and the use of policy

In a medical negligence context, and under the causation provisions enacted pursuant to Civil Liability Legislation in most Australian jurisdictions, the normative concept of “scope of liability” requires a consideration of whether or not and why a medical practitioner should be responsible for a patient’s harm. As such, it places a limit on the extent to which practitioners are deemed liable for a breach of the duty of care owed by them, in circumstances where a legal factual connection between that breach and the causation of a patient’s harm has already been shown. It has been said that a determination of causation requires ‘the identification and articulation of an evaluative judgement by reference to “the purposes and policy of the relevant part of the law”’: Wallace v Kam (2013) 297 ALR 383, 388. Accordingly, one of the normative factors falling within scope of liability is an examination of the content and purpose of the rule or duty of care violated – that is, its underlying policy and whether this supports an attribution of legal responsibility upon a practitioner. In this context, and with reference to recent jurisprudence, this paper considers: the policy relevant to a practitioner’s duty of care in each of the areas of diagnosis, treatment and advice; how this has been used to determine an appropriate scope of liability for the purpose of the causation inquiry in medical negligence claims; and whether such an approach is problematic for medical standards or decision-making.

Non-reductive Physicalism, Irreducibility of the Mental and the Problem of Mental Causation : A study of Donald Davidson's and Georg Henrik von Wright's positions in the philosophy of mind

In this study I consider what kind of perspective on the mind body problem is taken and can be taken by a philosophical position called non-reductive physicalism. Many positions fall under this label. The form of non-reductive physicalism which I discuss is in essential respects the position taken by Donald Davidson (1917-2003) and Georg Henrik von Wright (1916-2003). I defend their positions and discuss the unrecognized similarities between their views. Non-reductive physicalism combines two theses: (a) Everything that exists is physical; (b) Mental phenomena cannot be reduced to the states of the brain. This means that according to non-reductive physicalism the mental aspect of humans (be it a soul, mind, or spirit) is an irreducible part of the human condition. Also Davidson and von Wright claim that, in some important sense, the mental aspect of a human being does not reduce to the physical aspect, that there is a gap between these aspects that cannot be closed. I claim that their arguments for this conclusion are convincing. I also argue that whereas von Wright and Davidson give interesting arguments for the irreducibility of the mental, their physicalism is unwarranted. These philosophers do not give good reasons for believing that reality is thoroughly physical. Notwithstanding the materialistic consensus in the contemporary philosophy of mind the ontology of mind is still an uncharted territory where real breakthroughs are not to be expected until a radically new ontological position is developed. The third main claim of this work is that the problem of mental causation cannot be solved from the Davidsonian - von Wrightian perspective. The problem of mental causation is the problem of how mental phenomena like beliefs can cause physical movements of the body. As I see it, the essential point of non-reductive physicalism - the irreducibility of the mental - and the problem of mental causation are closely related. If mental phenomena do not reduce to causally effective states of the brain, then what justifies the belief that mental phenomena have causal powers? If mental causes do not reduce to physical causes, then how to tell when - or whether - the mental causes in terms of which human actions are explained are actually effective? I argue that this - how to decide when mental causes really are effective - is the real problem of mental causation. The motivation to explore and defend a non-reductive position stems from the belief that reductive physicalism leads to serious ethical problems. My claim is that Davidson's and von Wright's ultimate reason to defend a non-reductive view comes back to their belief that a reductive understanding of human nature would be a narrow and possibly harmful perspective. The final conclusion of my thesis is that von Wright's and Davidson's positions provide a starting point from which the current scientistic philosophy of mind can be critically further explored in the future.

Next Generation SHRM Research: From Covariation to Causation

[Excerpt] In response to the longstanding and repeated criticisms that HR does not add value to organizations, the past 10 years has seen a burgeoning of research attempting to demonstrate that progressive HR practices result in higher organizational performance. Huselid’s (1995)groundbreaking study demonstrated that a set of HR practices he referred to as High Performance Work Systems (HPWS) were related to accounting profits and market value of firms. Since then, a number of studies have shown similar positive relationships between HR practices and various measures of firm performance. While the studies comprising what I refer to as “first generation SHRM research” have added to what is becoming a more convincing body of evidence of the positive relationship between HR and performance, this body tends to lack sufficient data to demonstrate that the relationship is actually causal in the sense that HR practices, when instituted, lead to higher performance. This next generation of SHRM research will begin (and, in fact has begun) to focus on designing more rigorous tests of the hypothesis that employing progressive HRM systems actually results in higher organizational performance. This generation of research will focus on two aspects: demonstrating the HRM value chain, and proving causality as opposed to merely covariation.

G-protein beta3 subunit gene (GNB3) variant in causation of essential hypertension

-Essential hypertensives display enhanced signal transduction through pertussis toxin-sensitive G proteins. The T allele of a C825T variant in exon 10 of the G protein beta3 subunit gene (GNB3) induces formation of a splice variant (Gbeta3-s) with enhanced activity. The T allele of GNB3 was shown recently to be associated with hypertension in unselected German patients (frequency=0.31 versus 0.25 in control). To confirm and extend this finding in a different setting, we performed an association study in Australian white hypertensives. This involved an extensively examined cohort of 110 hypertensives, each of whom were the offspring of 2 hypertensive parents, and 189 normotensives whose parents were both normotensive beyond age 50 years. Genotyping was performed by polymerase chain reaction and digestion with BseDI, which either cut (C allele) or did not cut (T allele) the 268-bp polymerase chain reaction product. T allele frequency in the hypertensive group was 0.43 compared with 0.25 in the normotensive group (chi2=22; P=0.00002; odds ratio=2.3; 95% CI=1.7 to 3.3). The T allele tracked with higher pretreatment blood pressure: diastolic=105+/-7, 109+/-16, and 128+/-28 mm Hg (mean+/-SD) for CC, CT, and TT, respectively (P=0.001 by 1-way ANOVA). Blood pressures were higher in female hypertensives with a T allele (P=0.006 for systolic and 0.0003 for diastolic by ANOVA) than they were in male hypertensives. In conclusion, the present study of a group with strong family history supports a role for a genetically determined, physiologically active splice variant of the G protein beta3 subunit gene in the causation of essential hypertension.

Causation, counterfactuals and competitive advantage

Causation is still poorly understood in strategy research, and confusion prevails around key concepts such as competitive advantage. In this paper, we define epistemological conditions that help to dispel some of this confusion and to provide a basis for more developed approaches. In particular, we argue that a counterfactual approach – that builds on a systematic analysis of ‘what-if’ questions – can advance our understanding of key causal mechanisms in strategy research. We offer two concrete methodologies – counterfactual history and causal modeling – as useful solutions. We also show that these methodologies open up new avenues in research on competitive advantage. Counterfactual history can add to our understanding of the context-specific construction of resource-based competitive advantage and path dependence, and causal modeling can help to reconceptualize the relationships between resources and performance. In particular, resource properties can be regarded as mediating mechanisms in these causal relationships.

Causation, counterfactuals and competitive advantage

Causation is still poorly understood in strategy research, and confusion prevails around key concepts such as competitive advantage. In this paper, we define epistemological conditions that help to dispel some of this confusion and to provide a basis for more developed approaches. In particular, we argue that a counterfactual approach – that builds on a systematic analysis of ‘what-if’ questions – can advance our understanding of key causal mechanisms in strategy research. We offer two concrete methodologies – counterfactual history and causal modeling – as useful solutions. We also show that these methodologies open up new avenues in research on competitive advantage. Counterfactual history can add to our understanding of the context-specific construction of resource-based competitive advantage and path dependence, and causal modeling can help to reconceptualize the relationships between resources and performance. In particular, resource properties can be regarded as mediating mechanisms in these causal relationships.

Intention and Causation in Medical Non-Killing: The impact of criminal law concepts on euthanasia and assisted suicide

null RAE2008

Anti-beta(1)-adrenergic receptor antibodies and heart failure: causation, not just correlation.

Antibodies specific for the beta(1)-adrenergic receptor are found in patients with chronic heart failure of various etiologies. From work presented in this issue of the JCI, we can now infer that these antibodies actually contribute to the pathogenesis of chronic heart failure. This commentary discusses mechanisms by which these antibodies may engender cardiomyopathy.