An ever increasing number of codes of conduct, disciplinary bodies, ethics committees and bureaucratic policies now prescribe how health professionals and health researchers relate to their patients. In this book, Mark Henaghan argues that the result of this trend towards heightened regulation has been to undermine the traditional dynamic of trust in health professionals and to diminish reliance upon their professional judgement, whilst simultaneously failing to trust patients to make decisions about their own care. This book examines the issue of health professionals and trust comparatively in a number of countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The book draws upon historical analysis of legislation, case law, disciplinary proceedings reports, articles in medical and law journals and protocols produced by management teams in hospitals, to illustrate the ways in which there has been a discernable shift away from trust in healthcare professionals. Henaghan argues that this erosion of trust has the potential to dehumanise the unique relationship that has traditionally existed between healthcare professionals and their patients, thereby running the risk of turning healthcare into a mechanistic enterprise controlled by a ‘management processes' rather than a humanistic relationship governed by trust and judgement. This book is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of medical law and medical sociology, public policy-makers and a range of associated professionals, from health service managers to medical science and clinical researchers.
The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 radically reformed the property rights of married and de facto couples whose relationships end on the death of one of the parties. The new rules were frequently portrayed as a mere extension of the provisions applicable on separation. However, RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY ON DEATH explains how differently the Act operates on death. RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY ON DEATH provides a coherent theory of the distinction between relationship property rules and succession rules as the basis for analysis and application of the new legislation.This book critically analyses the death provisions in detail, the options for surviving spouses and partners, the consequences of those options, and the various ways in which these consequences can be circumvented through asset and estate planning. It considers the rights of third parties, such as children of the relationship creditors, and others who may have a claim against the deceased spouse or partner. A team of seven expert authors, led by Nicola Peart, Margaret Briggs, and Mark Henaghan from the University of Otago, have put together this authoritative and highly accessible work. Lawyers, businesses, financial advisers, and academics who specialise in family and succession law will find this book essential reading for their work. Awarded the JF Northey Memorial Prize for Best New Zealand Legal Book published in 2004, this is a masterful analysis of a difficult subject.
Legislation and commentary on the Care of Children Act 2004, the Civil Union Act 2004, the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, the Status of Children Amendment Act 2004.
Delays in the court process are a key obstacle in accessing justice. Delay creates costs; not only in the loss of time but also financial and psychological costs. These costs are borne by the litigants, the economy, and the public purse. This is the first major New Zealand study to investigate the pace of High Court civil cases and to examine if, and where, delays might occur. In this report, we look at both the overall length of cases, and we focus on various points in the life of a case where delay might occur. We have used mixed methods to study these issues: a quantitative analysis of data provided by the Ministry of Justice, an analysis of physical court files, and interviews with lawyers, judges, court staff, and litigants. Determining the overall length of a case is a more complex task than it appears on its face, particularly as there are limitations to the data recorded by the Ministry of Justice. Where possible, we have used our analysis of the physical court files to overcome these limitations and evaluate case length. On average, a case filed in the High Court will conclude within 191.5 days. General proceedings, one of the types of civil proceedings heard by the High Court, frequently exceeded the average case length, taking an average of 381 days to conclude. As general proceedings were the longest class of cases and account for 29 per cent of the High Court’s total caseload, the report focuses on this case type. Study participants agreed that most general proceedings should not exceed two years; only 18 per cent of general proceedings exceeded this limit. Analysing case length alone, however, cannot answer all questions about delay. Delay can occur in extremely short cases; conversely, for some very long cases the passage of time could not be conceived as delay. In fact, we précised several long cases that had no evidence of delay. These included cases that were ‘parked’ for various reasons: waiting for a related case to be resolved, an appeal to be heard, remedial work to be undertaken, or a settlement negotiated. Some cases just needed more time to be ready for trial, especially cases involving multiple parties, or with complex evidentiary issues. While lengthy, these cases were not necessarily delayed. Other cases – long and short – exhibited evidence of delay. Interviews with the participants helped to tease out the nature of this delay. The lack of judicial time to promptly hear fixtures (interlocutory and substantive) and deliver judgments was of particular concern. The unavailability of litigation participants, especially experts, also slows the pace of a case. Errors by registry were also evident; while rare, these errors can delay case progression. Finally, litigation involves a range of participants: litigants, lawyers, witnesses, court staff, and judges. The behaviours of any of these participants in the process can affect pace. For example, litigants, whether represented or unrepresented, can create delay for strategic reasons; lawyers preparing court documents late or to a poor standard can create delay. We canvas the interplay between these litigation participants and consider how these relationships can affect pace. When considering solutions to the causes of delay the fundamental purposes of the court must be kept to the fore: to secure just outcomes between parties, publicly state the law, reinforce norms, and limit executive power. The court is a complex organisation. There are many participants who each respond to their own pressures and incentives. Any solutions must take into account this complexity. Proposed reforms should be carefully considered and approached cautiously. Before firm recommendations can be made, further analysis of this data is required. A number of possibilities, however, have emerged at this preliminary stage. Many of these reforms centre on the case management process, including: earlier identification of issues in dispute, greater inclusion of litigants earlier in the process, improving the timing and methods of eliciting witness evidence, considering judicial specialisation, and setting firm timetables. Another key area for further research is initiatives to lower or better plan the cost of legal representation, which has a close but complex relationship with the pace of litigation. Other possible reforms focus on the court’s broader operations, including: protecting judgment writing time, and maximising the advantages that can be harnessed from modern technology. There is an urgent need to improve data about who uses our courts, whether or not they are represented, and how their cases proceed. Without this information, we are unable to design a civil justice system that responds to the needs of those using the court and that protects its important public function
An ever increasing number of codes of conduct, disciplinary bodies, ethics committees and bureaucratic policies now prescribe how health professionals and health researchers relate to their patients. In this book, Mark Henaghan argues that the result of this trend towards heightened regulation has been to undermine the traditional dynamic of trust in health professionals and to diminish reliance upon their professional judgement, whilst simultaneously failing to trust patients to make decisions about their own care. This book examines the issue of health professionals and trust comparatively in a number of countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The book draws upon historical analysis of legislation, case law, disciplinary proceedings reports, articles in medical and law journals and protocols produced by management teams in hospitals, to illustrate the ways in which there has been a discernable shift away from trust in healthcare professionals. Henaghan argues that this erosion of trust has the potential to dehumanise the unique relationship that has traditionally existed between healthcare professionals and their patients, thereby running the risk of turning healthcare into a mechanistic enterprise controlled by a ‘management processes' rather than a humanistic relationship governed by trust and judgement. This book is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of medical law and medical sociology, public policy-makers and a range of associated professionals, from health service managers to medical science and clinical researchers.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.