Attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide: Effects of physician background,patient prognosis and patient mental health status

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate views toward physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as patient illness (terminal, not terminal), patient mental health (depressed, not depressed) and physician background (preoccupied, not preoccupied with death) are varied. Participants (N = 211) read a newspaper article and trial summary involving a PAS then gave their impressions of the patient, physician and PAS. Patient mental health did not affect decisions, but the preoccupied physician's testimony was seen as less believable (intent was seen as patient death, not an end of pain and suffering), and he was more likely to be seen as guilty than the non-preoccupied physician (reflected by both verdict and guilt level ratings). The terminal patient was seen as suffering more, wanting suicide more, and making a more rational decision to die than the non-terminal patient. Results are discussed in light of recent legal activity involving PAS.     

Crime,punishment, family violence,and the cloak of legal invisibility

Abstract

In this article, the authors trace how the Anglo-Australian system of criminal law constructs crime within the family differently from other forms of crime. The zone of legal impunity for intrafamilial crime was carved out by special defences and immunities, such as provocation and marital rape, as well as policing policies and practices that effectively decriminalised “domestic” forms of physical and sexual abuse. Legal impunity was never absolute, and there were notable exceptions where the familial and gendered aspects of the crime in fact aggravated the offence, such as the law's treatment of spousal murder by females as a form of “petty treason”, warranting the most severe punishment of burning at the stake. Reforms in the late twentieth century removed overt forms of gender discrimination from the criminal law, exposing a new legal visibility of crime within “the family”, though as the authors conclude, there are still remnants of differential treatment in fields of sentencing law and practice.     

Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes

In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus “splitting the difference,” judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provide potential explanations for this phenomenon. First, Galanter (1974) suggests that litigants with greater resources will achieve more favorable outcomes in the courts. Where two high‐resource, repeat‐player litigants meet in the appeals courts, these more sophisticated and successful parties may be able to persuade the court to render decisions with mixed outcomes that at least partially favor each party. Second, split outcomes may result from strategic interactions among the appeals court judges on the decisionmaking panel. Where majority opinion writers seek to accommodate other judges on the panel, split outcomes have the potential to serve as an inducement for more ideologically extreme judges to join the majority opinion. Finally, Shapiro and Stone Sweet ( Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro & Stone Sweet 2002 ) propose that courts will sometimes split the difference in order to enhance their legitimacy (and ultimately enhance compliance by losing parties). For example, in highly salient cases, where noncompliance would more clearly threaten court legitimacy, judges may be more likely to split the difference in order to mollify even the losing party. We develop an empirical model of mixed outcomes to test these propositions using data available from the U. S. Courts of Appeals Database and find evidence supportive of all three theoretical perspectives.     

The Experience of the Infant Entering Refuge (Shelter) Setting with Their Mothers After Fleeing Family Violence

Journal of Family Violence - Almost nothing is known about how the infant may experience being in a women’s Refuge (Shelter) setting with their mother after fleeing family violence, despite...     

Negotiating a Place for ‘Sustainability’ Policies in Municipal Planning and Governance: The Role of Scalar Discourses and Practices

The widespread adoption of sustainability agendas in urban contexts has opened a now well-recognised ‘policy space’ linking sustainability principles with urban development and local politics. Central to these enquiries is a focus on the need to spatialise debates on sustainable urban development by examining the scales at which locally grounded tensions are resolved. Using a case study set in the City of Vancouver, Canada, this article shows how the adoption of one specific sustainability policy—food policy—was enabled by specific reframings of the scale at which it was assumed to be most appropriately situated, and shows how new strategies for co-ordinating governance at and between scales were deployed.