Biomedical subjects

Mirko Bagaric

Publications and source records attributed to Mirko Bagaric.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.

Australia↗

PubMed2004

Moving from voluntary euthanasia to non-voluntary euthanasia: equality and compassion.

The recent Dutch law legalising active voluntary euthanasia will reignite the euthanasia debate. An illuminating method for evaluating the moral status of a practice is to follow the implications of the practice to its logical conclusion. The argument for compassion is one of the central arguments in favour of voluntary active euthanasia. This argument applies perhaps even more forcefully in relation to incompetent patients. If active voluntary euthanasia is legalised, arguments based on compassion and equality will be directed towards legalising active non-voluntary euthanasia in order to make accelerated termination of death available also to the incompetent. The removal of discrimination against the incompetent has the potential to become as potent a catch-cry as the right to die. However, the legalisation of non-voluntary euthanasia is undesirable. A review of the relevant authorities reveals that there is no coherent and workable "best interests" test which can be invoked to decide whether an incompetent patient is better off dead. This provides a strong reason for not stepping onto the slippery path of permitting active voluntary euthanasia.

Civil Rights↗

PubMed2003

Why wrongful birth actions are right.

A wrongful birth action is a claim in negligence brought by parents of a child against a doctor who has "wrongfully" caused their child to be born. These claims can be divided into two categories: those where a doctor performs a failed sterilisation procedure that leads to a healthy child being born; and those where a doctor fails to provide sufficient information to allow parents to choose to abort a handicapped child. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312 falls into the former category. The decision to allow the parents to receive damages for the costs of raising and maintaining their child has generated much public debate. Despite the endorsement of this "wrongful birth" action, there are indications that the legislature will overturn the decision. This article examines whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising wrongful birth actions.

Appendectomy↗

PubMed2003

The moral status of wrongful life claims.

A wrongful life action is a claim brought by a disabled child who asserts that but for a physician's negligence he or she would not have been born, thereby being spared the suffering of life. The action is inherently controversial because the alternative to an impaired life is non-existence. Lord Griffiths has described such claims as 'utterly offensive; there should be rejoicing that the hospital's mistake bestowed the gift of life upon the child.' This paper cuts through the rhetoric that the debate has generated and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognizing wrongful life actions.

Australia↗

PubMed2002

Euthanasia: why it doesn't matter (much) what the doctor thinks and why there is no suggestion that doctors should have a duty to kill.

A major reason that The Netherlands has taken a different approach to the rest of the world on such a fundamental moral issue is that the courts and legislature in that country have accorded the interests of doctors a cardinal role in the euthanasia debate. This article argues that the interests of doctors are of only incidental and peripheral relevance in relation to the moral status of euthanasia. The moral status of euthanasia has little to do with the preparedness of doctors to administer the lethal injection or their general attitude towards the practice. Euthanasia is principally about the interests of the patient and the impact that the practice may have on the community in general, not preserving the conscience or improving the working life of doctors.

Attitude to Death↗