Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Legal Herald - THE LAW AND YOU

Legal Herald - May 2006

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's Namibian Baby

May 31st 2006 14:53
from www.wikipedia.com

Ladies and Gentlemen, she has finally graced us with her presence. Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt was born on Saturday 27th May in Swakopmund, Namibia. You will notice that unlike everyone else, I will refrain from labelling her as the world’s most beautiful baby. Sure, she probably is. But imagine the pressure this girl will have to face living up to everyone’s expectations. Think about it. She could end up with Angie’s giant forehead, Brad’s bad skin and a tattoo with Billy Bob Thornton’s name on it. So let’s all please call her by her name, Shiloh Nouvel, even if we can’t pronounce it.


from www.wikipedia.com

Now what does all this have to do with the law you ask? Well, the Namibian Government is offering little Shiloh Nouvel citizenship in their country. The thing is, that under Namibian law, merely being born in the country does not entitle you to automatic citizenship. So how is it that this 4 day old child has managed to entice the Namibians into the offer?

Under Namibian law, a person may be entitled to something known as “Honourary Citizenship”. This refers to citizenship offered to that person by the President of Namibia. The President must be of the opinion that the person to whom the offer is being made has rendered a distinguished service to the country.


Now, I’m not quite sure that Shiloh Nouvel herself has rendered any distinguished services as of yet. I’m guessing President Hifikepunye Pohamba‘s decision to offer such citizenship would be based on all the saintly work in which Brangelina have been involved over the past year or so. This includes Angelina’s work as Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, large monetary donations from the couple to local Namibian schools and hospitals and the increase in tourism the two have generated by their mere presence in the African nation.

The couple’s publicist has announced that they are yet to decide whether or not to accept the offer. I say go for it. It’s an honour usually reserved for royalty. And maybe kids whose names we can’t pronounce.



The images used in this post were obtained from www.wikipedia.com
The picture of Angelina Jolie is subject to the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and modify a work under that license.
The picture of Brad Pitt is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Air Force
78
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


The Legal Definition of Death

May 30th 2006 08:03
Morbid topic, I know. But believe it or not there are millions of cases around the world that discuss the legal definition of death.

from www.morguefile.com


Under the Human Tissue Act 1983, NSW, for the purposes of the law of NSW, a person has died when there has occurred:
a. irreversible cessation of all function of the person’s brain or
b. irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the person’s body.

This is an important matter for the courts to consider because in some situations, medical treatment may be withheld from a patient at their request or at the request of the patient’s family. The thing is, that if a doctor agrees and pulls the cord that is sustaining that person’s life, then he or she could be accused of murder. So the courts have to decide the point at which a person is legally dead and whether it was the doctor who either lawfully or unlawfully caused it.

Generally, under Australian law, a competent adult patient is entitled to refuse treatment even if he or she will die as a result. A doctor who acts on a patient’s refusal will not incur any civil or criminal liability.

However, the keyword is REFUSAL of treatment. A patient, no matter how competent he or she may be, cannot request a positive act to bring about death. That would be murder, and that’s what the whole euthanasia debate is about. Giving a lethal injection to a patient is considered a positive act and is unlawful in Australia whilst turning off a patient’s respirator is considered an omission rather than a positive act and is lawful.

That doesn’t mean that any old doctor can turn off any old respirator any old time he wants. No. In some instances, patients can’t actually refuse the treatment themselves because, for example, they are in a coma. So what is the doctor supposed to do?

A doctor can lawfully withdraw treatment in two circumstances. Firstly, if it is futile treatment and secondly, if the treatment imposes a burden on the patient not justified by the potential advantages. Futile treatment refers to treatment that is of no practical value. An example of this is where death is inevitable and the treatment will not cure the person. There was a case in England that involved a boy who was critically injured and left in a permanent vegetative state. Although his brain stem was in tact, his lungs had been reduced to a watery mass and he had lost all his senses. There was no chance of him recovering and for that reason, any treatment would have been futile.

Treatment that imposes a burden on the patient refers to any treatment that will result in an unacceptable quality of life. There have been no Australian decisions that confirm the withdrawal of treatment in such circumstances, but again there are English cases that support the concept in cases of very profound disability. There was one such case where a child was born with severe brain damage, had lost sight and hearing and was unresponsive. The child was in a condition where he could not survive but for the ventilation and feeding equipment that he was attached to. In that situation the court decided that treatment should be withdrawn because all the treatment was doing was prolonging an unacceptable quality of life.

In short, a doctor can only withhold treatment from a patient if:
1. the doctor has the patient’s consent and the patient is considered a competent adult
2. the treatment is futile
3. the treatment imposes an unjustifiable burden on the patient
Otherwise, the doctor may have to face a murder charge.
76
Vote
Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Aussie Issues
   


Breast Implants for Teenagers?

May 29th 2006 05:04
from www.morguefile.com


When 19 year old BB6 housemate Krystal, announced on national television that she had silicone implanted into her breasts, the nation was divided in its thoughts on the matter. For some, she was too young to have had plastic surgery. For others, Krystal was an individual, capable of making her own choices in life. For me, well, I didn’t actually know her name was Krystal. I just knew her as that kid on Big Brother with fake boobs.

Regardless of what anyone thinks, the bottom line is that under Australian law, Krystal has the legal right to receive cosmetic surgery if she so chooses. For starters, Krystal is not a minor. Minors are defined under legislation to attain majority at 18 years of age.

Generally, if you are a minor you cannot consent to a medical procedure. There is a presumption in the law that minors are incompetent to make such a decision. Only your parents can consent to medical treatment, and any parent in their right mind probably would not consent to their daughter’s breast augmentation.

However, as children grow up, they gradually acquire the right to make their own decisions about some procedures, and when that happens, the child’s consent is sufficient authority for the procedure to be undertaken. So does that mean teenage girls potentially can receive breast implants? Well, yes, but the answer is not quite as simple as it seems.

There is a test that is generally applied known as the ‘Mature Minor Test’: A minor is capable of giving informed consent when he or she achieves a sufficient level of understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to understand fully what is proposed. By law, a child must understand the nature of the treatment and its consequences before a doctor can undertake the particular procedure. The more serious and invasive the surgery is, the more carefully a doctor must assess the child’s level of understanding. Doctors are legally obliged to consider the patient’s apparent maturity, intelligence and attitude, signs of mental illness, depression, social history and so on. So if a doctor is approached by a teenage girl who fits the criteria of a Mature Minor, then legally, he or she can go ahead with the operation.

It’s a distressing thought isn’t it? This is the state of the law in a society so obsessed with self image, in a society where girls are growing up idolising Pamela Anderson, Tara Reid and even Krystal. There have been calls by surgeons, parents and the public to ban cosmetic surgery of minors but so far, the law stands as it is.


79
Vote
Comments (8)Comments (8) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Aussie Issues
   


Schapelle Corby's Defence Witness Jailed

May 26th 2006 09:38
On May 27 2005, Schapelle Corby, a beauty student from Queensland was sentenced to a 20 year jail term in Bali for the importation of 4.1kg of Cannibas into the country. Now, one year later, the story continues as a defence witness is sentenced to eight years in jail.

photographed by Kevin Connors
from www.morguefile.com
[ Click here to read more ]
73
Vote
Read MoreRead More Comments (7)Comments (7) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Aussie Issues
   


Property Law

May 25th 2006 09:10

Buying or selling a house? Renting? Leasing? Squatting? Then listen up, this is something that anyone who lives in anything besides a cardboard box should know.
[ Click here to read more ]
63
Vote
Read MoreRead More Comments (2)Comments (2) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Aussie Issues
   


Michelle Rodriguez Behind Bars Again

May 24th 2006 07:27
Hide it. Lock it up. Bury it. I don't care, just keep the booze away from Michelle Rodriguez. She's behind bars once again, but unlike her last prison sentence of only 5 days, this time she'll be locked up for 60. Yes, 60 DAYS! That's two whole months of the orange jumpsuit, bad hair, no make up and of course everything else that goes along with spending time in jail.

Michelle Rodriguez
from www.wikipedia.com
[ Click here to read more ]
58
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


Michelle Williams' Dad Released on Bail

May 23rd 2006 08:30

Question – What is the easiest way to be released on bail?
Answer – Have a famous child.
[ Click here to read more ]
56
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


BLOGGER'S MURDER TRIAL

May 22nd 2006 08:27

When I came across this case, I didn’t really know what to think...
[ Click here to read more ]
61
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Murder
   


The Da Vinci Code Court Case

May 21st 2006 04:22
The recent release of the Da Vinci Code on the big screen has left everyone talking, everywhere. To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember what on earth we used to talk about BEFORE the movie (or even the book) was released. Which can only mean one of two things. Either, that I am a 23 year old with the memory of a 103 year old, or that Dan Brown has cast a magic spell over us all so that we live and breathe the Da Vinci Code, for a little while at least.

from www.wikipedia.com
[ Click here to read more ]
72
Vote
Read MoreRead More Comments (3)Comments (3) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


Law-ha-ha

May 20th 2006 05:10
Who ever said that the law was boring? Ok so maybe I did once. But I TOTALLY take it back. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I have found for all you legally inclined people out there a website that is so hilarious, so ingenious and yet so legal all at the same time.

Impossible, you’re thinking? Too good to be true? Well, log onto LawHaHa and see for yourself.
[ Click here to read more ]
75
Vote
Read MoreRead More Comments (4)Comments (4) Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Lawyers
   


Michelle Rodriguez Too Fast, Too Furious

May 18th 2006 08:16
It’s really quite sad when public figures find themselves on the wrong side of the law. Not only do they kill the glamorous Hollywood image that they have worked on creating for themselves but also, they set a bad example for their fans and for those who look up to them. Michelle Rodriguez is no exception.

from www.wikipedia.com

[ Click here to read more ]
53
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


Habitual Traffic Offenders

May 17th 2006 08:02
from www.morguefile.com



[ Click here to read more ]
50
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Aussie Issues
   


Restraining Order Against Charlie Sheen

May 16th 2006 06:36
from www.thesmokinggun.com


You know him from the CBS hit series Two and a Half Men and Platoon. You know her from Wild Things and Starship Troopers. Who would have thought that several sitcoms, movies and 2 kids later, Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards would be caught up in a legal battle so scandalous? So messy? So very much like Hollywood...
[ Click here to read more ]
52
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Celebrities
   


CULTURAL RITE or VIOLATION OF RIGHTS?

May 15th 2006 08:30
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). It’s one of those things you hear about but don’t really think about if it doesn’t affect you. The reality is that an estimated 140 million of the world’s women and girls have undergone the procedure and currently it is believed that 6000 females are being genitally mutilated every year. So what is it exactly and why is it causing such an uproar in the international legal community?

www.morguefile.com
[ Click here to read more ]
51
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: World Issues
   


LEGAL NEWS

May 15th 2006 07:30
www.morguefile.com
Stern faces. Big words. Curly white wigs. Let’s face it, the law is a scary thing. It is complex, daunting and involves Latin. Enough said.

The thing is, you don’t need to be a criminal or a lawyer to be caught up in its hungry jaws. The law is an all-encompassing monster that chews up everyone. Scarier still, you never know when it will creep up on you.
[ Click here to read more ]
56
Vote
Read MoreRead More Add CommentsAdd Comments
[ Link ]
Posted By: Legally Brunette - Category: Lawyers
   


More Posts
July 2007
3 Posts
June 2007
2 Posts
January 2007
8 Posts
Older Posts
132 Posts dating from May 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
[ View Blog Summary ] [ Create A New Post ]
Moderated by Joy Grunenwald
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]