Bracket creep in Australian abortion indications: when did rubella arrive?

This article highlights a common misconception about abortion law that is apparent from reading Harriton v Stephens (2006) 226 CLR 52; namely, that fetal abnormality forms a prima facie case for lawful abortion across Australia. This fallacy stems from the legacy of British law drafted in the aftermath of the thalidomide crisis of the early 1960s, and continues to shape beliefs about Australian abortion law in society and within the judiciary. The article notes the fundamental contradictions between British-style law that provides for abortion on the ground of fetal abnormality and New South Wales case law that provides for lawful abortion in regard to the health and wellbeing of the woman. The author concludes that it is misguided and erroneous to configure abortion law in terms of the fetus inconsistent with the tradition of abortion law, and New South Wales authority.     

Criminal liability of physicians: an encroachment on the abortion right?

The Supreme Court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade established that decision of first trimester abortion is left to the physician, exercising his best medical judgment, in consultation with the patient. During this period the state may not regulate abortion determination since there is no compelling state interest; therefore a physician performing abortion will be precluded from civil or criminal liability. In second trimester abortion the state has a compelling interest in the health of the mother and may regulate the procedure to protect maternal health; although a previable fetus may be able to survive the abortion, Roe v. Danforth definitively places the woman's right to an abortion above the life of the fetus during the previable stage; therefore the state cannot seek to safeguard the life or health of the fetus during the abortion. Third trimester abortion implies a viable fetus; thus, a compelling state interest in the potential life arises and the state may regulate and proscribe abortion except when necessary for the life and health of the mother. The determination of when viability has been achieved is a matter of judgment resting with the physician who has the choice of techniques and operating procedures which may or may not be fatal to the unborn. It is a question of either termination of pregnancy or destruction of the fetus. In this last case the legal responsibility placed upon the physician is very serious, and involving a risk of civil and criminal liability. Uncertainties as to the boundaries of legal abortion and the threat of criminal liability can only result in a reluctance among physicians to perform second and third trimester abortions, which is against the fundamental right to abortion guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court will have to elaborate upon the scope of the abortion right, whether it encompasses fetal destruction or only termination of pregnancy, because it directly affects the extent and quality of maternal and fetal care that must be rendered by a physician. If only termination of pregnancy is included the Court must resolve whether the woman's health interests predominate, or whether the physician can be required to enhance fetal survival. Physicians have a right to know the full extent of legal ramifications and implications of legally induced abortion.     

Has the cocaine epidemic arrived in the UK?

National surveys of the UK drug situation in 2000 found that cocaine was the most frequently seized Class A drug, with 25-40 tonnes of cocaine being smuggled into the UK each year. In the light of these findings, an audit of the analytical monitoring for cocaine abuse has been performed covering the period from 1996 to 2002. It was found that there has been a consistent upward trend in the percentage of requests found to be positive for cocaine over this 7-year study period, rising from 9.7% in 1996 to 22% in 2002. This data would suggest that the use of cocaine has increased dramatically over the past few years, indicating that the arrival of the "cocaine epidemic" has now started to become a reality in the UK.     

Suing the Alma Mater: What loss has been suffered?

The commercialisation of the university sector has introduced a real possibility of litigation by dissatisfied students. Various difficulties occur, however, in the analysis of the element of a case in negligence. This article considers the existence of compensable harm suffered by a student suing for generalised 'failure to teach'. It considers recent cases in Australia and the United Kingdom within and outside the context of educational negligence to conclude that compensable damage is a theoretical possibility. It also considers problems of causation, and concludes that the cumulative difficulties of establishing compensable harm and causation provide a significant disincentive to sue in negligence for generalised failure to teach.     

Twenty years after Gilmore: Who is being executed?

This research profiles the 432 felons executed between 1977, the first execution in the post-Gregg era, and 1997. The 432 death row inmates executed during this period were males (with one exception), convicted of murder under at least one aggravating circumstance, and had extensive criminal histories. Most held low-prestige jobs prior to their last arrest, achieved less than a high school education, and had serious mental or emotional problems. Only a handful of these executions generated any publicity. Those who were executed were lower class individuals unlikely to arouse any public sympathy. The author would like to thank Richard Tewksbury and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper.