大学生关于同性恋群体态度的实证研究

研究旨在探讨大学生关于同性恋群体外显态度与内隐态度之间的联系与差异,为进一步改善同性恋生存现状奠定理论基础。研究采用问卷调查法对257名大学生进行外显态度的调查,采用内隐联想测验对内隐态度进行测验。结果显示大学生对于同性恋群体的态度在外显态度上表现得更为接纳,而在内隐态度方面人们较为排斥,即实际上人们对于这一群体仍持有负性态度。     

Justins v The Queen: assisted suicide, juries and the discretion to prosecute

Juries are often a crucial protection for citizens against unjust or highly controversial laws. The decision whether to proceed with a prosecution rests on the discretionary powers of prosecutors. In cases where the community is deeply divided over right and wrong, it appears that there is, at times, a transference from the public of thwarted law reform aspirations which can create difficult tensions and expectations. This case commentary considers an appeal by Shirley Justins following her conviction for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence as a result of her involvement in the mercy killing of her partner, Mr Graeme Wylie. The morally unsettled nature of the charges brought against her, her own initial plea, the directions given to the jury by the trial judge and even the basis of her appeal resulted in a convoluted and complicated legal case. Spigelman CJ and Johnson J ordered a new trial, Spigelman CJ stating that it was open for a new jury to consider (a) if Mr Wylie lacked capacity; and (b) whether there was criminal involvement by one person in another's death. Simpson J found that further prosecution on the count of manslaughter would amount to an abuse of process and that an acquittal should be entered. This case highlights how fundamentally unsettled are the publicly much debated and persistently contentious issues of euthanasia, assisted suicide, the right of a person to die a dignified death and the way their capacity in that respect should be assessed. It perhaps asks us to reconsider the role of juries and the exercise of discretion by Directors of Public Prosecutions in areas of law where the community and law-makers are deeply and intractably divided.     

Global artificial photosynthesis project: a scientific and legal introduction

With the global human population set to exceed 10 billion by 2050, its collective energy consumption to rise from 400 to over 500 EJ/yr and with the natural environment under increasing pressure from these sources as well as from anthropogenic climate change, political solutions such as the creation of an efficient carbon price and trading scheme may arrive too late. In this context, the scientific community is exploring technological remedies. Central to these options is artificial photosynthesis--the creation, particularly through nanotechnology, of devices capable to doing what plants have done for millions of years - transforming sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into food and fuel. This article argues that a Global Artificial Photosynthesis (GAP) project can raise the public profile and encourage the pace, complexity and funding of scientific collaborations in artificial photosynthesis research. The legal structure of a GAP project will be critical to prevent issues such as state sovereignty over energy and food resources and corporate intellectual monopoly privileges unduly inhibiting the important contribution of artificial photosynthesis to global public health and environmental sustainability. The article presents an introduction to the scientific and legal concepts behind a GAP project.     

Recovering fraudulent claims for Australian federal expenditure on pharmaceuticals and medical devices

The Australian Federal Government expends increasingly large amounts of money on pharmaceuticals and medical devices. It is likely, given government experience in other jurisdictions, that a significant proportion of this expenditure is paid as a result of fraudulent claims presented by corporations. In the United States, legislation such as the False Claims Act 1986 (US), the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act 2009 (US), the Stark (Physician Self-Referral) Statute 1995 (US), the Anti-Kickback Statute 1972 (US), the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 1938 (US), the Social Security Act 1965 (US), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 (US) has created systematic processes allowing the United States Federal Government to recover billions of dollars in fraudulently made claims in the health and procurement areas. The crucial component involves the creation of financial incentives for information about fraud to be revealed from within the corporate sector to the appropriate state officials. This article explores the opportunities for creating a similar system in Australia in the health care setting.     

The High Court's lost chance in medical negligence: Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537

In 2010 the High Court of Australia in Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 determined an appeal in a medical negligence case concerning a six-year-old girl who had presented to a major paediatric hospital with symptoms over several weeks of headaches and vomiting after a recent history of chicken pox. The differential diagnosis was varicella, meningitis or encephalitis and two days later, after she deteriorated neurologically, she received a lumbar puncture. Three days later she suffered a seizure and irreversible brain damage. A CT scan performed at that point showed a brain tumour. As Australia does not have a no-fault system providing compensation to cover the long-term care required for such a condition, the girl (through her parents and lawyers) sued her treating physician. She alleged that, because a cerebral CT scan was not performed when clinically indicated after the diagnosis of meningitis or encephalitis and before the lumbar puncture, she had "lost the chance" to have her brain tumour treated before she sustained permanent brain damage. She succeeded at first instance, but lost on appeal. The High Court also rejected her claim, holding unanimously that there were no policy reasons to allow recovery of damages based on possible (less than 50%) "loss of a chance" of a better medical outcome. The court held that the law of torts in Australia required "all or nothing" proof that physical injury was caused or contributed to by a negligent party. The High Court, however, did not exclude loss of chance as forming the substance of a probable (greater than 50%) claim in medical negligence in some future case. In the meantime, patients injured in Australia as a result of possible medical negligence (particularly in the intractable difficult instances of late diagnosis) must face the injustice of the significant day-to-day care needs of victims being carried by family members and the taxpayer-funded public hospital system. The High Court in Tabet v Gett again provides evidence that, as currently constituted, it remains deaf to the injustice caused by State legislation excessively restricting the access to reasonable compensation by victims of medical negligence.     

Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court

The Australian High Court recently found that the common law could allow parents to claim tortious damages when medical negligence was proven to have led to the birth of an unplanned, but healthy, baby (Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1). In Harriton v Stephens (2006) 80 ALJR 791; [2006] HCA 15 and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan (2006) 80 ALJR 846; [2006] HCA 16 the High Court in a six-to-one decision (Kirby J dissenting) decided that no such claim could be made by a child when medical negligence in failing to order an in utero genetic test caused the child severe disability. In an era when almost all pregnancies will soon require patented fetal genetic tests as part of the professional standard of care, the High Court, by barring so-called "wrongful life" (better termed "wrongful suffering") claims, may have created a partial immunity from suit for their corporate manufacturers and the doctors who administer them. What lessons can be learnt from this case about how the Australian High Court is, or should be, approaching medical negligence cases and its role as guardian of the Australian common law?