Zoe's Law
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests Registered Users: None |
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: Zoe's Law | |
|
There's an interesting law being debated in NSW seeking to give limited 'personhood' rights to late-term foetuses.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/zoes-law-debate-nsw-abortion
The pro-choice lobby are claiming slippery slopes and getting their placards out, but on closer inspection it seems a cautious and well thought through proposal. The woman behind it explains the situation here:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/22/comment-busting-myths-around-zoes-law
Quote: | As the mother of Zoe, whom Zoe’s law is named for, I feel it's necessary to explain why I'm proposing the law be introduced and what it will and won’t do. But first let me explain how the events of 2009 became the catalyst for my role in advocating for legal reform.
Who is Zoe?
Zoe was my daughter. My daughter who did not survive when a minivan driven by a drug affected driver on Christmas day 2009 left the road and hit me.
I was 32 weeks pregnant, and it took three hours to extract me from the scene of the accident; I was pinned by trees and partially under the front of the car.
I was then airlifted to Royal North Shore Hospital. My daughter had a heartbeat upon arrival. Two hours later when they began to have trouble locating it, I was given an emergency caesarean, but Zoe didn’t make it.
My partner Nick, Zoe’s dad, had to break it to me. She was perfect except for a mark on her lip from the resuscitation attempts. She was warm and looked and smelt like any other newborn.
We were heartbroken - losing my daughter was harder to recover from than any of my many injuries.
When the driver was finally charged six months after the accident, she was only charged with Dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm to ME. She did not even lose her licence until sentencing some nine months after being charged (15months in total after the accident). Zoe was listed in amongst my injuries. I couldn’t reconcile that my daughter which I’d held, cried over and willed to breathe was placed in a list of broken bones and soft tissue injuries. |
I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Some of her views may surprise you.
From the information given here, what do you think? Would you be inclined to support such a bill? Do you think pro-choice advocates are right to be concerned? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wow that's powerful, I cried, for the mother and for Zoe, may She rest in peace.
And I totally agree, can't believe it's not already the law to be honest, seams like common sense.
Yes most of the time I like to believe there is a higher power, but I have always been pro choice. Up to the point the blob becomes a baby. And once that point is reached it should work both ways. Protect the baby and also uphold that babies rights
In very special circumstances ( a friend was pregnant years ago, a much wanted child, late scans determined terrible problems that would have a major impact on quality of life for child and parents, not every one supported her decision, I did, not everyone could cope and that's fair enough, but better to pick it up earlier)
As for the law I think it's brilliant, Zoe deserves her justice.
Rip little one
Great article david _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Having read the articles, I'd support that.
I'm pro choice but that seems to be well reasoned and limited legislation. The devil is always in the detail, the law of unintended consequences hovers like a spectre especially when you have people in official capacities with the jurisdiction to interpret legislation according to the wording and irrelevant of the intent. So for mine it needs to be very tightly worded to leave the element of jurisdictional interpretation as narrow as possible.
But in principle, I fully agree with it. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think it is very important that the criminal law provide therapy for grieving parents. That's obviously the role of the State. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Is that all this is about, though? Do you really think this woman has campaigned for three years just so she can get a nice little decorative 'sorry for your loss' certificate? _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yes to your first question. As to your second, I neither know why "this woman" has campaigned for however long she has, nor do I care about her purpose. It's a proposed change to a criminal law. The proponents' motives are irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Spoken like a robot, apologies to hal _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Oh, you are a poet. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | It's a proposed change to a criminal law. The proponents' motives are irrelevant. |
Be that as it may, comprehending her argument may lead us to take a similar view. Her claim is not that a mother's loss need be recognised so much as the loss of life itself. I'm inclined to agree with that.
Of course, if you're of the belief that a pre-birth human organism at any stage of development (be it 20 weeks or 39.5 weeks) is a mere group of cells with no valid claims to personhood, then you would be inclined to see this proposed change as frivolous. Those who don't necessarily subscribe to that premise will likely see it differently. I guess that's the debate crystallised right there. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm sure she would like to hear about that. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Try this on for size: Say Zoe's mother is deeply depressed and decides to end her own life. She drives her car deliberately into a tree with the intention of killing herself. She fails to achieve her objective but she does manage to kill her unborn child. Is that to be manslaughter (assume, as is undoubtedly correct, that all other necessary elements of the crime are made out by the facts I have posited)? What about a mother-to-be who causes her unborn child a fatal injury by drinking too much or by taking drugs?
For me, "Be that as it may" doesn't come into it. The only question for the criminal law is how the perpetrator is to be dealt with. There is no reasonable basis for doing a "head count" for manslaughter charges in circumstances where the only sensible answer a sane person at the scene of the accident would give is that there was 1 injured pregnant woman in the car. The crime isn't more or less serious because the pregnant woman was "late term". Nor is it more serious if, for example, the woman is pregnant with "late term" quintuplets.
We all know that people shouldn't drive mini-vans when they are high on drugs - the question is how such people are to be charged when they cause injury and, if found guilty, sentenced. It makes the consequences of the crime worse for the victims if there were 5 injured pregnant women in the one vehicle who lost 10 "late term" twins between them. The relevant question for the criminal law, though, is what you want to do with the perpetrator. Presumably, unless one is driven by grief or retribution (or both), one doesn't want that driver sentenced on 10 counts of manslaughter and 5 of causing grievous bodily harm.
Thus, taking the view (as one must) that the perpetrator should not be dealt with in any significantly different way because one or more of the people in the other car happened to be pregnant, one is led back to the question of the point of the proposed change to the law. The criminal law is concerned with what society does with the perpetrator. That should not differ according to how many "unborn people" there might happen to be in the car.
It is, of course, different in the law of tort - where the object is compensation for injury, rather than punishment of a wrongdoer. But, even there, it is necessary for the child to survive birth in order to have standing as a plaintiff. If you are interested in engaging with the deeper debate, you will find some opposing views cogently expressed by Justices Kirby and Crennan in Harriton and Stephens: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/au/cases/cth/HCA/2006/15
You might also want to read Watt v Rama [1972] VR 353 and, most especially, Lynch v Lynch (1991) 25 NSWLR 411 and contemplate, among other things, how you would want the criminal law to deal with the drivers in those cases.
These are not new issues. It is, in my opinion, little more than hubris for Zoe's mum to think that she could wander in and sort it all out. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Maybe. I know one is between zero and two but I had no idea it was driven by grief or retribution or one doesn't want [he or she]that [he or she]driver sentenced on 10 counts of manslaughter and 5 of causing grievous bodily harm. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
How does that joke about lawyers at the bottom of the sea go again?
And yes the mother should be held accountable, that goes for smoking, drinking, drug addicted mothers whatever. I'm sure the outclause that works so well in other situations would work for depression here too.
Nothing more heartbreaking than a baby with withdrawal symptoms _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
P4S, we already have instances of the child's death being recognised (and contributing to criminal charges) in cases such as this:
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/solitary-mistake-woman-walks-from-court-after-fatal-uturn-crash-20130625-2otve.html
The anomaly here seems to be the fact that the infant lived for a short time after the emergency caesarean. One might well imagine that, had this woman been under the influence of drugs and a repeat offender (as in the Donegan case), she would have served time.
Clearly, the amount of people in the car is going to affect sentencing. If, while under the influence, you crash your truck into a tram carrying five mothers with newborn babies on their laps (or five quintuplets newborns each, if you like), you are going to be charged with ten (or, in the other case, thirty) counts of manslaughter. How is this so different?
The same would be the case for a mother who crashes her car with her newborn infant within or lets it die through neglect. Clearly, the crux of the matter is whether we can assign personhood/individual rights to late-term foetuses. Everything else follows from there. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I'm glad it's all so clear to you. Plainly, alternative input is not required and I've wasted my time thinking about these issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|