It Will Only Hurt a Little Bit: Compulsory Vaccination and the Right to Refuse Medical Treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Peden
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Compulsory Vaccination ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

scholarly journals A decay of rights: The decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rose Louise Goss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Water Supplies ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
District Council ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

<p>The decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council is the most recent legal development in the New Zealand debate about fluoridation of public water supplies. That decision centred on the interpretation of section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the right to refuse medical treatment. The Court held that the fluoridation in question was legal, and reached a limited definition of medical treatment that did not encompass fluoridation. This paper analyses the reasoning leading to that interpretation, concluding that the decision is problematic and that the definition of s 11 needs to be remedied. The use of the wording of s 11 to limit the definition of medical treatment was inappropriate, as was the policy reasoning used to support that limitation. The structure of reasoning followed exacerbated these issues and adhered too closely to the reasoning in United States cases. Furthermore, the application of a de minimis threshold was conducted without adequate scrutiny, and such a threshold should not be applied to s 11.</p>

scholarly journals A decay of rights: The decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Rose Louise Goss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Water Supplies ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
District Council ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

<p>The decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council is the most recent legal development in the New Zealand debate about fluoridation of public water supplies. That decision centred on the interpretation of section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the right to refuse medical treatment. The Court held that the fluoridation in question was legal, and reached a limited definition of medical treatment that did not encompass fluoridation. This paper analyses the reasoning leading to that interpretation, concluding that the decision is problematic and that the definition of s 11 needs to be remedied. The use of the wording of s 11 to limit the definition of medical treatment was inappropriate, as was the policy reasoning used to support that limitation. The structure of reasoning followed exacerbated these issues and adhered too closely to the reasoning in United States cases. Furthermore, the application of a de minimis threshold was conducted without adequate scrutiny, and such a threshold should not be applied to s 11.</p>

scholarly journals A Decay of Rights: The Decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 161
Author(s):  
Rose Louise Goss
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Water Supplies ◽  
Legal Development ◽  
District Council ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

The decision in New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council is the most recent legal development in the New Zealand debate about fluoridation of public water supplies. That decision centred on the interpretation of s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the right to refuse medical treatment. The Court held that the fluoridation in question was legal, and reached a limited definition of medical treatment that did not encompass fluoridation. This article analyses the reasoning leading to that interpretation, concluding that the decision is problematic and that the definition of s 11 needs to be remedied. The use of the wording of s 11 to limit the definition of medical treatment was inappropriate, as was the policy reasoning used to support that limitation. The structure of the reasoning exacerbated these issues and adhered too closely to the reasoning in United States cases. Furthermore, the application of a de minimis threshold was conducted without adequate scrutiny, and such a threshold should not be applied to s 11.

scholarly journals The Right to Refuse Treatment for Infectious Disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 171-182
Author(s):  
Carl H. Coleman
Keyword(s):  
Infectious Disease ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Extreme Position ◽  
Refusal Of Treatment ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

Abstract One of the central tenets of contemporary bioethics is that mentally competent persons have a right to refuse medical treatment, even if the refusal might lead to the individual’s death. Despite this principle, laws in some jurisdictions authorize the nonconsensual treatment of persons with tuberculosis (TB) or other serious infectious diseases, on the grounds that doing so is necessary to protect the safety of others. This chapter argues that, in the vast majority of situations, overriding a refusal of treatment for infectious disease is not justifiable, as the risk to third parties can be avoided by the less restrictive alternative of isolating the patient. At the same time, it rejects the extreme position that the nonconsensual treatment of infectious disease is never appropriate. Instead, it concludes that compelling an individual to undergo treatment for infectious diseases may be ethically justifiable in exceptional situations if a refusal of treatment poses a grave risk to third parties, the treatment is not overly burdensome and has been established to be safe and effective, and less restrictive alternatives, including humanely isolating the patient, are not feasible under the circumstances. The burden should be on those seeking to compel unwanted treatment to demonstrate that these requirements have been met.

scholarly journals Censoring cyber-bullies: Is the Harmful Digital Communications Bill a justified limitation on the right to freedom of expression?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Annie O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Digital Communication ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Digital Communications ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Online Abuse ◽  
The Right

<p>Harmful Digital Communications have become a pervasive and serious problem in New Zealand. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill aims to address this problem in a number of ways. This paper focuses on the civil enforcement regime and the criminal offence of causing harm by posting a digital communication established by the Bill. It considers these aspects of the Bill in light of the right to freedom of expression, and analyses whether they constitute a justified limitation on that right. By applying the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 5 analysis from Hansen v R, the paper discovers that the civil enforcement regime is a justified limitation, but the new criminal offence is not. The paper concludes that the inclusion of a public interest defence in the offence would allow it to effectively ameliorate the harm caused by online abuse without impinging on freedom of expression more than is reasonably necessary.</p>

The Right to Refuse Medical Treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights

2001 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Wicks
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right To Refuse

scholarly journals The Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011: An Unprecedented Licence to Search

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Harriet Bush
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Video Surveillance ◽  
Video Camera ◽  
The State ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Ratio Decidendi ◽  
The Right ◽  
Camera Surveillance

This article examines the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act 2011 which was passed as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in the case Hamed v R. This Act provided that a search was not unlawful simply because video surveillance was used. The article explores the previous court decisions on the lawfulness of police use of covert video surveillance in order to ascertain whether the premise upon which the Act was based, that video surveillance was lawful before Hamed v R, was correct. It then looks at the ratio decidendi of Hamed v R and the potential wider implications of this judgment. Finally, it assesses the state of the law under the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Act and whether this Act limited the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure which is contained in s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

PEDIATRIC BILL OF RIGHTS

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 370-370
Author(s):  
Susan Andreasen
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Young Lady ◽  
National Association ◽  
Parental Consent ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Humanities In Medicine ◽  
Right To Refuse

Recently, while attending a course concerned with Humanities in Medicine I had the pleasure of meeting the 10-year-old daughter of one of the participants. The young lady was party to several of our informal discussions on informed consent and children. She was pleased to hear that a Pediatric Bill of Rights existed but she was most displeased when she read the contents. For the Bill of Rights proposed by the National Association of Childrens Hospitals and Related Institutions1 supports the right of minors to obtain medical care without parental consent if a conflict exists. Susan, objected to this being called the "Pediatric" Bill of Rights for it had little to do with what children would propose. Consequently, she composed a true Pediatric Bill of Rights as follows: 1. Any person regardless of age has the right to refuse pedeatric care. 2. Any person regardless of age has the right to pick there own pedeatrision, if there a girl they can pick a girl, if if there a boy they can pick a boy. 3. Any person regardless of age has the right to not take there medicen if they dont want to. 4. Any person regardless of age has the right not to wear those paperthings at the doctors office. 5. Any person regardless of age has the right not to get weighed at the doctors office.

The Need for a Constitution in the United Kingdom

1979 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 269-285
Author(s):  
Wilberforce
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Flexible Instrument ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

I was not surprised when, from several alternative subjects, you chose, as the title of my Lecture, the need for a Constitution in Britain. Those of us without a written constitution are indeed, a select club—New Zealand, Israel, the United Kingdom.I will start with a quotation from Lord Salmon. In a recent lecture, he said: In this country [U.K.] we have an unwritten constitution. I have always regarded this as a blessing and never agreed with the theoretical objections to it. It is superbly flexible and above all it has stood the test of time. It works—and works admirably. But I am beginning to wonder whether it might not be wise to evolve, not an elaborate written constitution but perhaps the equivalent of a modern Bill of Rights. A statute which should lay down our basic freedoms, provide for their preservation and enact that it could not be repealed save by, say, a 75% majority of both Houses of Parliament.One can recognize in this passage the views of an eminent common lawyer, believing in the strength and potentialities of the common law as a flexible instrument, in, of course, the right hands: of one who believes deeply in human freedom, and who is concerned about the threat to it: who desires an explicit definition of the basic liberties and who believes that these can be protected by a sufficiently strong, entrenched, legal system. In this he undoubtedly reflects the views of many people, probably of the majority of ordinary men.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document