Throughout the world the majority of people identified with disabilities have been overlooked, hidden and ridiculed in the community (AHRC, 2013). Australian history demonstrates that in ‘dealing’ with this issue many individuals with disabilities have been placed in institutions and/or prisons and by sterilising many young girls (AHRC, 2013). The recent concern presented by Federal disability commissioner Graeme Inns, of the rise in sterilisation in young girls with disabilities begs the question of if the rights of these young girls are being adhered to (ABC, 2012). This case study will examine the legal and ethical issues whilst also discussing the rights of an individual with a disability. By analysing the Australian Common and Family Law this case study will establish how the Australian government defines the rights of people with disabilities and how it is put into practice. The ethical issues that arise from this scenario will also be explored through appropriate literature in order to understand the implications sterilisation of young people with a disability has.
Family law conflicts are seldom resolved by the most senior court in Australia, and if they reach that level of judicial consideration they will most likely involve difficult and complex constitutional concerns (Forrester & Griffiths, 2009). Similar to the scenario, Marion's case came before the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in June 1990 raising the difficult issues surrounding the confusing area of parents and their children's rights (Harrison, 2009). The case brought to life the challenging issue of who may lawfully allow the sterilisation of an intellectually disabled teenage girl, and therefore brought the serious debate concerning family auto...
... middle of paper ...
...y and treatment. These legislative and state initiated measures ensure that in order to undergo sterilisation for an under age girl with a disability the appeal must first be heard by the Family court and then requires court authorisation to proceed. This protective measure guarantees that all ethical issues that may arise such as ability to give consent, the persons rights, what is in the persons best interest and that all other temporary and reversible methods such as oral contraceptives are considered before sterilisation is acknowledged. As the scenario suggests however, Federal disability commissioner Graeme Inns highlights that more is still required from the government to ensure the rights of those disabled persons are being followed through with. This included changes to the law to ensure that sterilisation are only done in the case of medical emergencies.
...ng on Justice Douglas view, it is not right to use genetics and issues of hereditary in legal decisions (Reilly, 1991). Such natural aspects should not violate the individual’s right of procreation and fourteen amendments. Everybody is therefore entitled to basic civic rights. Eugenics movement disappeared after the atrocities by the Germany regime. Although Holmes there was overturning of Homes decision eventually, Ms. Buck and many feebleminded American citizens were victims of State and Supreme Court immorality. Reviewing of the focus period, neither society nor individual got benefits of Compulsory sterilization statutes. The change of attitudes towards mental handicapped people over time is interesting. From late 1950s in the United States, civil and women rights movement, contribute to acts governing the handicapped rights including their rights to reproduce.
On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. Bioethics: An Anthology. Malden, MA. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Part II: Assisted Reproduction. Pence, G. The McCaughey Septuplets: God’s Will or Human Choice?, pages 87-88. Purdy, L. Surrogate Mothering: Exploitation or Empowerment?, pages 91-93. Hanscombe, G. The Right to Lesbian Parenthood, pages 104-107.
Sue Axon, from Manchester, is a mother of five children who filed an amendment over the Department of Health’s updated guidelines in the High Court in 2006. The focus of her action is to honor the rights of the parents over their children in terms of having an abortion and taking contraceptives. She stated that the guidelines given by the Department of Health undermines the roles of parents (BMJ Publishing Group, 2005). Mr. Axon’s attempt failed. Mr. Philip Sales said that implementing the “right to know” of parents will result to discouragement of young women to seek medical advice regarding their sexual
...rvices as a cause of the sexual attitudes, patterns and trends existent in society today. Undoubtedly, a multitude of wider factors are to blame. The extent of availability has also been deemed a weakness due to potential health complications. However, no medical advance or regulation reform can rid a procedure of risk. From looking at the strengths of the approach, it is clear that regulations inflict little disruption on the lives of patients. Most importantly, the British approach to abortion eliminates any desire or need to undergo an unsafe termination. Changing regulations in regards to restrictions of abortions may undermine this strength which may cause the re-emergence of high maternal mortality rates. Therefore, the strengths overpower any of the aforementioned weaknesses. The British approach to the regulation of abortion is in no serious need of reform.
In response to the baby Gammy conundrum, Tom Percy has written 'Baby Gammy case shows the need for paid surrogacy,' in the Perth Times on September the 1st 2014. He argues that Australia needs to legalise commercial surrogacy as the laws are innefective and will prevent a such a tragedy occurring again. This piece has a suggestive tone and is aimed at residents of Australia.
This essay will discuss the impact Human Rights Law has upon the aspects of domestic family law in the United Kingdom in relation to abortion. It will analyse and provide insight into how Human Rights Law has impacted, if at all, on the law of abortion, as a medical intervention, within the United Kingdom. This essay aims to use case law and legislation as a main source but other sources will be utilised to construct a logical argument on this topic. The essay will focus primarily on abortion law and decisions within the United Kingdom and several other European countries. With specific reference to the United Kingdom, the following Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights shall be considered;
I understand that you have been working with our employee Louis Reyes regarding the FMLA and short term disability claim. Yesterday I received the notification from Aetna that Louis’ claim was denied for short term disability. We do need to take a closer look at the dates listed on the claim regarding the last day worked. According to the Kronos record Louis was coded for PTO on 7/12 and his last day worked was actually on 7/11. On 7/12 I reached out to Louis as he was absent at work and was not previously approved for PTO. Louis indicated that he was unaware he was supposed to be at work that day during that particular phone conversation and thought it was the weekend. After cross checking with Louis today he informed his inability to know
Mayes, R., & Llewellyn, G. (2009). What happens to parents with intellectual disability following removal of their child in child protection proceedings? Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 34(1), 92-95. doi:10.1080/13668250802688348
Currently, abortion is a crime under New South Wales (NSW) and Queensland statute law. The NSW Crimes Act 1900, section 82 decrees: “Whosoever, being a woman with child, unlawfully administers to herself any drug or noxious thing, or unlawfully uses any instrument or other means, with intent in any such case to procure her miscarriage, shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.” Section 83 denotes the same, however references doctors rather than pregnant women. Sections 224 and 225 of Queensland’s Criminal Code 1899 echo identical sentiments. Later rulings in Australian courts have set a precedent more liberal than the statute law, however. In NSW, the ‘Levine Ruling’ from R v. Wald decreed that abortion was lawful if “...the accused had an honest belief on reasonable grounds that what they did was necessary to preserve the woman involved from serious danger to their life, or physical or mental health...”. Similarly, Queensland’s ‘Maguire Ruling’ in R v Bayliss and Cullen deferred to Victoria’s ‘Menhennitt Ruling’ in R v Davidson. Justice Menhennitt ruled in Davidson that abortion was lawful if the defendant “...believed on reasonable grounds that the act done by him was (a) necessary to preserve the woman from a serious danger to her life or her physical or mental health (not being merely the normal dangers of pregnancy and childbirth)...”. Despite these rulings, it is still necessary to amend state legislation and remove abortion from the criminal code. Case law (as in Wald, Davidson, and Bayliss) is primarily relied upon by the Australian judiciary. However, it is too flexible and interpretive to exist independently, and thus is counterbalanced by the rigidity of statute law (as in the Crimes Act 1900). Because of this, Australian statute law and case law on abortion must be
The World Health Organisation, WHO, (1980) defines disability in the medical model as a physical or mental impairment that restricts participation in an activity that a ‘normal’ human being would partake, due to a lack of ability to perform the task . Michigan Disability Rights Coalition (n.d.) states that the medical model emphasizes that there is a problem regarding the abilities of the individual. They argue that the condition of the disabled persons is solely ‘medical’ and as a result the focus is to cure and provide treatment to disabled people (Michigan Disability Rights Coalition, 2014). In the medical model, issues of disability are dealt with according to defined government structures and policies and are seen as a separate issue from ordinary communal concerns (Emmet, 2005: 69). According to Enabling Teachers and Trainers to Improve the Accessibility of Adult Education (2008) people with disabilities largely disa...
It involves the unethical coercion of getting families to abort children with disabilities. Many families may not have the means to give birth to a child without the financial support of their insurance company. This could lead to them aborting out of necessity, rather than desire. The insurance company views them as lesser individuals, not necessarily the parents. Refusing to provide medical care to some parents based on personal views leads to dangerous territory. In this case, they might as well say “This child has undesirable traits, you should not have it. But, since you are set upon birthing this child, this mistake, we will not support you. It is your problem, you are on your own.” I’m sure they use fancier terminology, but it boils down to the same
...eglected social issues in recent history (Barlow). People with disabilities often face societal barriers and disability evokes negative perceptions and discrimination in society. As a result of the stigma associated with disability, persons with disabilities are generally excluded from education, employment, and community life which deprives them of opportunities essential to their social development, health and well-being (Stefan). It is such barriers and discrimination that actually set people apart from society, in many cases making them a burden to the community. The ideas and concepts of equality and full participation for persons with disabilities have been developed very far on paper, but not in reality (Wallace). The government can make numerous laws against discrimination, but this does not change the way that people with disabilities are judged in society.
Independent MP, Roby Pyne, is leading a push to remove criminal sanctions for abortion in Queensland; subsequently, reigniting the eternal abortion debate. Accordingly, the pro-choice campaign is more alive than ever before and is expounding at all social platforms the need to legalise abortion. Contrastingly, the Church and other anti-abortion movements have significantly excoriated these “heinous” ideals. Will this be enough, however, to avoid the divorce of Church and State? The current abortion law was amended in 1986 and reworded in 2009; the law only prohibits medical abortion to preserve a woman’s mental or physical health; ultimately, abortion is illegal unless dire circumstances warrant it (Children by Choice Association,
Disability: Any person who has a mental or physical deterioration that initially limits one or more major everyday life activities. Millions of people all over the world, are faced with discrimination, the con of being unprotected by the law, and are not able to participate in the human rights everyone is meant to have. For hundreds of years, humans with disabilities are constantly referred to as different, retarded, or weird. They have been stripped of their basic human rights; born free and are equal in dignity and rights, have the right to life, shall not be a victim of torture or cruelty, right to own property, free in opinion and expression, freedom of taking part in government, right in general education, and right of employment opportunities. Once the 20th century