Challenging Australia's "closed" model of neonatal care: the need for reform following Re baby D (No 2)

The withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment to compromised newborns is a subject of controversy in countries where there is now highly advanced neonatal care to keep such newborns alive. The topic has generated comparatively less debate in Australia, where case law is sparse and parents and clinicians themselves make decisions regarding the cessation of care, largely free from extemal oversight. The recent case of Re Baby D (No 2) [2011] FamCA 176 endorses this "closed" approach to neonatal decision-making. This article critically discusses some of its implications and makes suggestions for reform to ensure meaningful oversight of decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment. The authors argue that the judgment fails to address some fundamental issues, such as ensuring that those with the responsibility to make decisions are doing so on a "best interests" basis. This is important because, in a society where disability remains stigmatised and poorly understood, there is no opportunity under the approach adopted in Baby D to guarantee adequate protection of the rights of individuals born with physical or intellectual impairments.     

MOVING BEYOND GENERALIZATIONS AND STEREOTYPES TO DEVELOP INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACHES FOR WORKING WITH FAMILIES AFFECTED BY PARENTAL INCARCERATION

Competing narratives about incarcerated parents and their children are provided by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) and the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights (“Bill of Rights”). Both the “child‐at‐risk” narrative of ASFA and the “good mother” narrative of the Bill of Rights are stereotyped and oversimplified and contribute, in opposite ways, to misperceptions about incarcerated parents and their children by suggesting a uniformity of situations and appropriate responses that does not actually exist. The time‐driven approach of ASFA—and many state termination of parental rights statutes—is overly rigid, while the Bill of Rights overlooks important differences among families, as well as tensions and trade‐offs among policy choices. In actuality, the situations of the parents and children involved vary widely and defy easy analysis and solutions. We should therefore be taking an individualized, qualitative approach that is nuanced and based on actual information about incarcerated parents and their children, rather than a quantitative, categorical approach based on generalized and simplistic assumptions. Only if we recognize and grapple with the complexities of parental incarceration can we develop sound legal and social policy to meet the needs of these families.     

The Melbourne Jewish Left, Communism and the Cold War. Responses to Stalinist Anti-Semitism and the Rosenberg Spy Trial

This article explores the political marginalisation of the Melbourne Jewish Council to Combat Fascism and Anti-Semitism during the Cold War. Attention is drawn to contending views about the nature of the Council's links with communism. By comparing the Council's response to two coinciding international events during 1952 and 1953 - the anti-Jewish show trials in Stalinist Eastern Europe, and the Rosenberg spy trial in the USA - evidence is derived confirming the dominance of communist influence within the Jewish Council at that time. In order, I examine the Australian Jewish political context in which the Council operated and its relations with the wider Jewish community prior to the Cold War; explore rival arguments concerning the Council's links with communism and the Australian Communist Party; examine the major features of Stalinist anti-Semitism and the Council's response to them; recount the Council's reaction to the Rosenberg Spy Trial and Doctors Plot; and conclude that the Council lost influence because it fell under the control of a pro-Soviet group unwilling to recognise and attack anti-Semitism on the political left.