THE WILENSKI REVIEW

Since the early 1950s a spate of large-scale inquests on government administration has swept the English-speaking world, under governments of all political complexions. The phenomenon has received no general explanation, but its continuity has had certain practical advantages. It has added to the stock of techniques for conducting inquiries. It has suggested that linking investigation with implementation may reduce the risk of "pigeonholing". It has revealed the importance of political support for essays in reform. The experience also invites, by now, some reflections upon the role of vested interests in the reform process, the impermanence and relativity of particular recipes for reform, and the constant emergence of new perspectives for appraisal of administration. Although Professor Wilenski's Interim Report * is well over a year old, his Review is still in full swing, and is worth discussing not only on its own merits but also for the way it illustrates some of these points.
* Directions for Change: An Interim Report , by Professor Peter Wilenski, Commissioner, Review of N.S.W. Government Administration, Sydney, D. West, N.S.W. Government Printer, November 1977. Pp. ix + 353. Illustrations by Patrick Cook.     

AFTER LABELING AND CONFLICT

Criminology will become somewhat more concerned for values in the future hence shifting slightly from the empirical, scientific end of the spectrum toward the normative, philosophical end. This will result from crises in criminal justice. from the “coming crisis in western sociology.” from the effects of “critical criminology” from changes in social science generally. and from broader circumstances of criminology and criminal justice.     

Judging capacity: paternalism and the risk-related standard

There is a strong academic and medical consensus on judging patients' decision-making capacity in accordance with the seriousness of consequent risks, and this is supported in certain areas of the law. Supporters of the risk-related standard perceive an asymmetry between the level of capacity required for consent to a treatment, and the level required to competently refuse the treatment, particularly if the probable outcome of refusal is death. Despite the intuitive appeal of the risk-related standard, its opponents propose that when the risks of treatment or treatment-refusal are high, we should not require a higher standard of capacity, but be scrupulous in ensuring that a procedural standard is observed. This article considers both standards, from the point of view of the persons, interests and principles which ethics and the law seek to protect. It argues that a risk-related standard is incoherent, that a rigorously applied procedural standard will minimise paternalistic medical interventions, and that this should be reflected in the law.