There are two levels of health care requirements that are used to determine whether an individual demonstrates an acceptable standard of health before being admitted as a citizen. The first set of requirements is a list of medical conditions that have to be met or waived in order for an individual to meet the acceptable health standards. Health conditions that will render the individuals health unacceptable include HIV infections, malignancies of organs, Hepatitis B & C, chronic hepatic and renal diseases, severe chronic or progressive diseases, requirements for organ transplants, cardiac diseases, disabling hereditary disorders, chronic respiratory infections and severe physical or development issues (Lovelock, 2000, p. 911). The existence …show more content…
These are the right to a fair hearing, the rule against bias and the evidence rule. The right to a fair hearing provides that an individual should be allowed an opportunity to present their case. In ensuring that this obligation is met, the decision-making authorities must provide the individual the opportunity to prepare and present evidence in support of their case as well as an opportunity to respond to any arguments levelled against the individual by the opponent. The individual should be adequately advised of allegations and given the opportunity to respond to these allegations (Walton and Johnson, …show more content…
For the decision to be fair, it must meet the minimum requirements of natural justice. This means that the decision should have been made after giving the applicant a fair and unbiased adjudication process. The purpose of the concepts of natural justice is to protect the rights of individuals who interact with the state. The basis of these principles is that there us a duty to act fairly whenever the rights or interests of an individual are at stake. These principles are not concerned about the correctness of outcomes but help to ensure that the decision makers follow the right procedure when making decisions (Woodbridge and Bland, 2010, p. 43). A good decision requires attention to the process of how the decision is made and the merits of the decision. This process involves observing the principles of fairness and natural justice where the applicant has a fair hearing in a process that is not biased. Immigration officers must observe the principles of fairness and natural justice when they make decisions on applications. Fairness and natural justice are rules against bias and the right to a fair hearing. The principles of natural justice are the minimum requirements for a decision that is
As members of society we are told that the law is a predictable and reliable entity which is applicable to all individuals, despite the differences. This statement encourages us to abide by the law, and entrust it to make decisions that are best for us as individuals and as a community. Due to the formalism of law, it must be emphasized that there is a need for a compassionate component, to even the playing field. One way the law incorporates compassion into its system is through the use of juries. Juries are a random, unbiased selection of people who will be asked to sit in a trial and decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “a person accused of criminal activity ‘has the right
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
According to the Legal Aid Society (2016), a fair hearing
The principle of justice is to treat others equitably and fairly. Often confused with entitlement, it is providing quality and comparable care to individuals equally. One example of the principle of justice in society is the recent Affordable Care Act attempt to meet the healthcare needs of the
According to Penner et al. (2013), there are various causes of healthcare disparities, such as socioeconomic status; this results to poor healthcare services for people with low socioeconomic status, as people with low pay find it difficult to leave their work to seek healthcare help, or to afford healthcare insurance (p.4). The second cause is language proficiency. The language barriers faced by the immigrant plays a role in the healthcare disparities among the racial or ethnic minority patients. Another cause is health literacy. The levels of the health literacy among the foreign born individuals can be influenced by their higher level of distrust of the healthcare providers and healthcare system than they have towards Caucasian people. This, in turn, leads them to seek healthcare information less often than their Caucasian counterparts, thus hindering the provision of quality services, as well as limiting the foreign patients’ ability to manage their health conditions effectively. The foreigners’ failure to easily accept the information provided to them by healthcare providers puts them at risk. Disentangling the role of health literacy in racial healthcare disparities from the effects of racial attitudes and beliefs is often hard (Penner et al,
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
Justice is seen as a concept that is balanced between law and morality. The laws that support social harmony are considered just. Rawls states that justice is the first virtue of social institutions; this means that a good society is one structured according to principles of justice. The significance of principles of justice is to provide a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of the society and defining the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of the society. According to Rawls, justice is best understood by a grasp of the principles of justice (Rawls, 1971). The principles are expected to represent the moral basis of political government. These principles indicate that humankind needs liberty and freedom so long as they do harm others. Rawls states that justice is significant to human development and prosperity.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
An interesting phenomenon – the healthy immigrant effect (HIE) – has been observed in many countries, such as Canada, the United States, and Great Britain (Kennedy, McDonald & Biddle 2006). That is, immigrants entering these countries are typically healthier than native-born citizens. Yet, although a clear health gap separates native-born Canadians from new immigrants, it gradually dissipates to the point where the two groups exhibit similar levels of health (McDonald & Kennedy, 2004). Why people who have consistently enjoyed high levels of health for much of their lives would experience such a marked decrease is rather puzzling, but two major contributing factors have been identified – problems in access to healthcare and acculturation – which will be the focus of the following discussion. The former works against immigrants’ health by impeding their access to both preventative and therapeutic care. The latter compounds this effect by creating new and unhealthy behaviours in immigrants, while at the same time acting as a barrier...
The decision of the Federal Court in Mr. McGarrigle’s case will have large impacts on the interpretation and implementation of the NDIS, and consequently on the funding of all applicants. The Court may interpret the statute to require that funding is on the basis of an all-or-nothing system, which the NDIA argues would accordingly mean their funding would cover fewer applicants. Thus judicial review must be based on the interpretation of statute, rather than the substantive merits of the case, as a decision based on Mr. McGarrigle’s need affects the entire Scheme. Therefore, what the law requires must be the most important outcome. Judicial review has the ability to clarify procedural norms and help to create transparent and accountable outcomes. However, review should be based on law and not substantive
A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
The distinction between an unfair prejudice petition and a statutory derivative action has always been in the nature of remedy sought by the claimant. This is arguably the point where a distinction is drawn as to whether a statutory derivative action or an unfair prejudice petition should be pursued. A d...
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
These principles did not originate from any divine power, but are the outcome of the necessity of judicial thinking, as well as the necessity to evolve the norms of fair play. In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias and the right to a fair hearing. Natural Justice allows the accused to present their case and prove their innocents with out discrimination towards the accused.
Impartiality means that the judge should not show bias to any of the parties. The two parties should be treated in the same way in terms of equality. Additionally, both parties should be given similar opportunities to submit their cases.