Las funciones de los consejeros independientes de las sociedades en México: Recomendaciones para el cambio a partir de las asimetrías existentes entre la práctica y la ley

The legal notion of an independent board member was introduced to the Mexican legislation in 2005. The goal was to improve the corporate governance of the corporations listed on the stock exchange. It was thought that including the independent board members would help to better represent the interest of the minority holders, as well as to increase the level of accountability. This article challenges these ideas based on 10 interviews carried out with independent board members. It finds that what the law says is far from what actuatly occurs: they lack of an adequate level of knowledge to perform their tasks, their degree of independence is severely limited by the criteria used to appoint them and they usually ignore essential corporate information, which impede them from participating effectively in the board sessions. The article suggests the creation of an independent board member’s association, a mechanism that, along with a mandatory certification system, would improve the way in which they perform their duties.     

Aiding a suicide attempt

This article discusses the way in which substantive criminal law is generally taught in United States law schools and argues that more room should be given in these courses to familiarize students with the horrendous nature of much of our criminal law system—in particular the terrible conditions faced by most prison inmates after conviction.     

Adolescent Refusal of MMR Inoculation: F (Mother) v F (Father)

F (Mother) v F (Father) concerned a dispute between parents as to whether or not their 15 and 11 year old children should receive the MMR inoculation. Mrs Justice Theis took into consideration the wishes of both parents and the two ‘intelligent, articulate and thoughtful’ minors and held that inoculation was in their best interests. The troubled history of the MMR vaccine and its importance to public health provided the backdrop. Whilst the court's efforts to establish the views of the minors are to be commended, the decision is problematic in its assessment of the minors' individual medical interests and capacities, and in the significance placed on their views when determining whether inoculation would be in their best interests.     

Methodological considerations in the evaluation of offender interventions: the problem of attrition

Attrition from offender interventions presents methodological problems when the effectiveness of the intervention is under evaluation. This article proposes a treatment-received (TR) design, which incorporates one-to-one matching on criminogenic variables. This design permits the comparison of completer, noncompleter, and nonstarter groups with their paired comparisons and, hence, allows a more accurate evaluation of program completion and noncompletion effects. A sample of 173 offenders, referred to one of two general offending behavior cognitive skills programs within community settings, was matched one-to-one by criminogenic variables to offenders from an appropriate comparison group. Reconviction analyses were undertaken using intention to treat (ITT) analysis, TR analysis using the full comparison group, and TR analysis using matched comparison groups. The ITT design found no impact of group membership on reconviction. The TR designs, however, provided evidence of moderate effects of completion: For every three completers, five of the matched comparison group members were reconvicted. The analysis also suggested a noncompletion effect: Noncompleters were twice as likely as their matched comparison group to be reconvicted.     

Minors' capacity to refuse treatment: a reply to Gilmore and Herring

Re R and Re W allow a parent to consent to treatment a competent minor refuses, but the cases have not been tested post-Human Rights Act 1998. Gilmore and Herring offer a means by which they might be distinguished or sidelined. They interpret Gillick to say that in order to consent a minor need only have a full understanding of the particular treatment. They argue that the minors in Re R and Re W were refusing all treatment which requires a separate assessment of capacity-an assessment which was not made. We fear that this distinction would not be workable in clinical practice and argue that their interpretation of Gillick is flawed. From a clinician's point of view, competence cannot always be judged in relation to a specific treatment, but instead must relate to the decision. We show that a decision can incorporate more than one treatment, and more than one decision might be made about one treatment. A minor's understanding of a specific treatment is not always sufficient to demonstrate competence to make a decision. The result is that whilst there might be situations when a parent and a minor both have the power to consent to a particular treatment, they will not share concurrent powers in relation to the same decision. Consequently, a challenge to Re R and Re W, if forthcoming, would need to take a different form. We emphasise the necessity to minimise the dichotomy between legal consent and how consent works in medical practice.