Foetus

I went to the finals of the Law school mooting contest tonight to support a couple of mates who were in it. It was excellent and I now have four names of people I'm willing to have represent me when I go down with the Revolution. Both mates won a trophy and a trip to Australia so that's pretty cool. Even cool enough to make me wish that I'd stuck with law. That feeling passed.

The issues that were raised in the moot were pretty interesting and I think they warrant discussion.

1) Is a foetus part of the mother, or a separate legal entity? The case was based on a foetus who had died after 26 weeks due to the negligence of the doctor, so we don't have to examine the ethical problems of stem cell research etc. After 26 weeks a baby can survive without the mother (hooked up, I imagine, to a machine). It is still attached to the mother with living tissue, although the genetic makeup of the foetus is significantly different to that of the mother.

This issue is significant because of statutory law. If a doctor harms or kills a foetus through negligence, but the mother is physically unharmed - can the mother get compensation through the ACC legislation for personal injury? In the theoretical moot the mother did not want this as there were other avenues which were blocked if the foetus was deemed to be part of her legal person. I'm not going to swing either way, but it's worth thinking about.

2) If a doctor is struck of the register for negligence, should he be liable for punitive damages? I was convinced by the arguments put forward that he should be liable until I heard the arguments against - which involved a lot of law speak I've subsequently forgotten. The general gist of what was said was that in common law it is only possible for punitive damages to be awarded on top of disciplinary action when there is an astounding difference in what is fair and reasonable. In this case the Dr whose negligence caused the miscarriage was struck of the register, blocking his future medical and academic employment. It was held, and I found myself agreeing with this, that this was enough. May not be fair to the woman in that she did not get punitive costs, but the law is never about fairness.

Despite 6 hours of seminars and pub action, I still managed to crank out 1,000+ words so I'm not too shabby. And I'll leave you with an amusing exchange of words between Montoya and Button before Sundays Canadian GP. (go mclaren *feeble*).

The following exchange took place between Juan Pablo Montoya (BMW WilliamsF1 Team, 2000 Indianapolis 500 winner) and Jenson Button (Lucky Strike BAR Honda) when they were asked the question [what would you want to be if you weren't a F1 driver?)at a press conference.

Juan Pablo Montoya: "I don't know. Probably an architect. My father used to be an architect. So when I was a kid, I wanted to be an architect."

Jenson Button: "I'll be a second-hand car salesman, then."

Montoya: "Be washing cars or something."

Button: "Exactly."

Moderator: "Is that what you want to do?"

Button: "No, that's what my old man was. No, it would have to be something pretty crazy, I think. I don't know what."

Montoya: "Stunt driver or something."

Button: "Fighter pilot."

Montoya: "Yeah, that would be cool."