Some of the criticism is part of a larger body of criticism of pathways and guidelines in general. Some critics believe that pathways undermine individualised care and remove the ability of clinicians to make small changes in patient care (Palmer 2008, Rycroft-Malone et al 2008). For more information on this debate, refer to the discussion in Kennedy et al (2009). Some of the criticism of end of life care pathways relates to law and ethics. In particular, critics state that diagnosing death and putting people on end of life care pathways is a form of euthanasia – one newspaper story featured the headline ‘Sentenced to death on the NHS’ (Devlin 2009).
However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
Labeling a particular crime as special or different does not deter criminals from their true intention. If we place a "special" label on certain types of murder, rape or vandalism we are not preventing the hate that is the motive for such crimes. This is not the true goal of society. Helen Dodge makes a compelling argument to shun the members of such hateful communities in her article "Special Crimes Need Special Laws", when she says that the public should band together against such forces (Dodge 140). However, even she had to admit that these special laws won't deter the criminals who practice these violent acts.
Prohibition was intended to reduce crime and corruption within the USA, as well as solve problems and reduce tax burdens that were created by prisoners and poor houses (Thornton, M.1991). This essay will examine the factors that influenced prohibition, and will explain the consequences that arouse from it. The essay will then explain ways in which the drug trade in the
This is because it can be interpreted in many ways and may lead to misunderstanding. It has become a messy mixture of written and unwritten elements, it does not carry authority of some other constitutions such as that of the USA, this is due to it’s vague nature. It is also argued that its flexibility allows ‘elective dictatorship’, this is because governments would have the power to pass any law without considering if its constitutional or not. The main reason why the word
Please understand I am not arguing for the side, of companies and individuals that do wrong, should not have to pay some sort of monetary punishment, but when a woman can sue Mcdonalds, because she spills her coffee on herself, and its somehow Mcdonald’s fault because they did not label their coffee cups correctly, then there is something seriously wrong. I almost would have no
He dismisses this argument by listing other activities that could be harmful to an individual such as smoking tobacco, riding motorcycles, and having unprotected sex. This comparison makes the idea of prohibiting these activities because they are harmful to the individual participating in them seem rather ridiculous. Basically, illegal drugs CAN be harmful to a user; at the same time, smoking tobacco IS harmful to a user, yet smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal. I think Huemer’s argument effectively defeats the prohibitionists’ standpoint that drugs should be outlawed because they are harmful to the user. Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well.
‘Australia does not need a Bill of Rights, whether constitutionally entrenched or by ordinary statute. Such a Bill would reduce parliamentary sovereignty, politicise the judiciary, increase the costs of the legal system, complicate human rights protections and constitutional arrangements and encourage trivial and vexatious complaints. Moreover, there is no convincing evidence that such a Bill would significantly enhance Australia’s human rights protection given Australia’s good record on human rights protection, particularly when compared internationally and given Australia’s commitment to parliamentary democracy.’ Regrettably many of the premises in this argument, however sound they may seem, do not hold up when examined. Australia has been regrettably seen as a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to the issues of human rights On one hand it championed and was given responsibility in 1948 to the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has since been a leading member of the UN in adopting their Treaties. However the most recent period since September 11 2001, legislative and executive practice, has seen the erosion of human rights in Australia.
In this aspect justice has not been achieved for other victims of sexual assault. Identity was an issue in the trial. The judges found the experiment was a miscarriage of justice. "In our view there must, regrettably, be a new trial because of this ground," the judges said. Because the judges decided that a retrial was appropriate in this situation it showed that it was not only a fair judgment but also was not bias to any side which showed that the justice system operates
When a law does not seek to understand the circumstances, it is difficult to ascertain if a person is guilty of breaking the law. By flexibility one must not misunderstand that laws enforced will be subject to change depending on who the individual is, rather it will remain same for everyone. But the nature might undergo change subject to the right understanding as to why the law has been over ruled and if the reasoning is a plausible one, to be forgiven. By flexibility, one must not misunderstand that the enforcement of laws will be subject to change depending on who the individual is. The laws will rather remain the same for everyone but the