A comment on "Height and the standard of living in Puerto Rico from the Spanish Enlightenment to annexation by the United States, 1770-1924".

Using prisoner height data, Moreno-Lázaro (2023) claims that Puerto Rican living standards declined after US annexation and stagnated for decades. This conclusion is not supported by the prisoner data and is inconsistent with other welfare measures that show dramatic improvement, such as per capita GDP, life expectancy, and literacy.

Analysis of Part 1 of the latest Austroads Guidelines, June 2022.

The Austroads Fitness to Drive Guidelines were updated in 2022. Most of the focus to date has been on Part 2 of the Guidelines, which provide guidance as to specific medical conditions. Less attention has been paid to Part 1 of the Guidelines, which cover a medical practitioner's ethical and legal obligations. This paper addresses the imbalance by considering and amplifying the obligations discussed in Part 1 of the Guidelines.

Fitness to drive and seizures - Recent medicolegal considerations to tell or not to tell? - THAT IS THE QUESTION!

This paper reviews a Coroner's inquest into the deaths of two people. The deaths were caused when a driver had a seizure, and lost control of his car, which then plowed into a café. The Coroner reviews the roles and responsibilities of primary and tertiary caregivers, with special focus on the question of who has the responsibility to inform the Drivers' Licensing Authority of a patient's unfitness to drive - the patient or the practitioner? The Coroner recommends the establishment of a multi-agency committee to advance work in this area. The paper notes a separate but parallel development - a review of AUSTROADS Assessing Fitness to Drive Guidelines, which may achieve the outcomes sought by the Coroner.

Medical certificates attesting fitness to drive.

Few if any sanctions have been imposed on doctors for inappropriate certification of fitness to drive. This paper reviews a recent Tribunal decision on inappropriate certification of fitness to drive. This paper reviews the facts of the case of Medical Board of Australia v Andrew and discusses the legal implications for doctors who certify patients as fit to drive. The paper offers a necessary and timely warning that the Medical Board sought harsh sanctions, more severe than were imposed by the Tribunal, but that the Tribunal also felt compelled to impose 'general deterrence' to prevent inappropriate certification. The paper emphasises the need for scrupulous attention to detail and an absolute need for circumspection when assessing patients who claim to be seizure free, or who minimise impairment from a range of other conditions, insisting on clearance to be able to drive.

Usefulness of Austroads' fitness-to-drive guidelines: lessons from the Gillett case.

Regina v Gillett deals with a man who did not disclose his epilepsy when seeking a drivers licence. Subsequently, he had a seizure while driving, causing an accident in which three people died. He was found guilty but appealed. During the trial to decide whether Gillett was guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death, the judge decided that the Austroads fitness-to-drive guidelines were extraneous to legal consideration of the acceptable risk to be attached to chronic medical conditions. Although the appeal was unsuccessful with respect to guilt and sentencing, it did reinstate the relevance of the Austroads guidelines when evaluating suitable risk with respect to potentially dangerous drivers. We suggest that even greater protection can be afforded to the community if a clearly enunciated warning, outlining a driver's responsibilities, were to appear on each drivers license.

A brief primer on Good Samaritan law for health care professionals.

The Good Samaritan law is not found on the statute books, but has been a concept that courts have applied as public policy. However, this has recently changed in all the states and territories in Australia with the codification of Good Samaritan law. This paper is a timely reminder for health practitioners of the doctrine of the Good Samaritan, as well as the relative legal uncertainty of rescue at common law.

Wrongful death claims. Harriton v Stephens. [2002] NSWSC 461. Edwards v Blomeley. [2002] NSWSC 460. Waller v James [2002] NSWSC 462.

Studdert J in all three cases went to great length to summarise the global judicial position of "wrongful life" claims. He did not, however, examine in great length how or whether "wrongful life" claims or "wrongful birth" claims are reconcilable with tort and common law principles. Although the cases identify the difficulty in assessing and quantifying damages, they do not directly address the strict legal principles which apply in the assessment of damages. The main conclusion of the three judgments was that no duty of care is owed to the plaintiff in these circumstances and, even if a duty could be established, the impossibility of quantifying damages and public policy considerations warrant the rejection of such a claim: "thus conscience does make cowards of us all." The significance of the decisions cannot be understand. The decisions deny recognition of "wrongful life" claims in circumstances where a disabled person has incurred injuries en ventre sa mere (in the mother's womb) as a result of infections contracted by a plaintiff's mother or genetic material passed on by a plaintiff's parents. Some countries have now legislated for the abolition of "wrongful life and birth" suits. In January 2002 the French legislature passed a Bill overturning the "wrongful life" decision of the Cour de Cassation in Perruche (17 November 2000). As the issue now falls for ultimate determination by the French Senate, the French pro-life movement continues to lobby for the prohibition of "wrongful birth" suits as well. Furthermore, eight States in the United States have prohibited either one or both actions and the State of Michigan prohibited both actions in 2001. It is likely that all three cases will be appealed. The appeal in Harriton will re-examine the viability of a "wrongful life" claim in Australia whereas the cases of Edwards and Waller still need to determine the "wrongful birth" claims brought by the plaintiffs' parents. It is likely that the latter two cases will not be determined until the High Court has considered the Queensland "wrongful birth" case of Melchior v Cattanach, expected to be late in 2002.