Order in the Steinhaus case

In April 1986, one-month-old Lance Tyler Steinhaus sustained serious injuries, attributed to abuse by his father, that left him comatose. His mother and his physicians agreed that he should not be treated aggressively. The Redwood County (Minnesota) Welfare Department obtained a temporary order restraining withdrawal of Lance's antibiotic therapy. Lance's mother and Dr. David Steinhorn, a pediatrician, appealed to the County Court to dissolve the temporary injunction. Judge George I. Harrelson in this decision denied their request on the grounds that both state and federal law establish that infants with life-threatening conditions have a right to medically-indicated treatment and that Lance Steinhaus had such a right because he was in a "vegetative state" rather than technically "comatose." [Editor's note: After conducting another hearing on Lance's neurological status, the court ruled on 18 October that Lance was irreversibly comatose and ordered only "comfort care."]     

论经验主义应得刑罚对公众守法意识的形塑——以醉驾刑事案件的司法裁判为论域

醉驾入刑已逾十年,但相关案件的数量却不降反升。这既反映出不少驾驶人仍是侥幸心理有余而守法意识不足,同时也表明依靠“心理强制式”的刑罚来控制醉驾的治理方式效果欠佳。在新时代,刑事司法机关宜以“经验主义应得刑罚”为分配原则,通过与民众的沟通、协商,对醉驾人处以不偏离正义的“应得刑罚”,才能满足公众对醉驾案件的过程控制和结果控制意愿,从而使裁判结论获得正当性。长此以往,人们将不断增加对司法机关的信赖,司法机关也可籍此激活规范的行为引导功能,促使人们将规范内化,唤醒人们形成规范守法动机,进而使个体的守法行为由被动转为主动,最终实现“积极的一般预防”之刑罚目的。     

Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.