[Where do dangers lurk in informed consent and documentation and what are common technical mistakes?]

In legal expert discussions, the following questions are usually raised: Is the procedure indicated? Have all diagnostic and therapeutic steps been carried out lege artis? Has sufficient informed consent been provided? Is there a diagnostic or treatment error? Did this cause any damage? Is the damage causally related to the error? Consideration of these fundamental questions in daily practice and good communication between patient-physician, physician-patient, and between physicians themselves is good protection in legal disputes.

Thresholds: First gradually, then suddenly?

Writing in the context of proposal to expand the decriminalisation of illicit drugs in the Australian Capital Territory, Australia's smallest and most progressive jurisdiction, this article explores the key question of the use of quantitative thresholds to determine the level of drug use distinguishing personal use from trafficking. Recent literature demonstrates the use of quantitative thresholds has yielded highly divergent approaches in jurisdictions around the world. The literature also points to the underlying challenges involved in evaluating whether it is appropriate to employ quantitative figures to make that distinction, and if so how and to what ends. Harris (2011) goes so far as to describe 'conviction by numbers' as a 'lazy shorthand' that may exact an 'immeasurable cost of injustice' (3). Yet practices which do not rely on quantitative measures are at real risk of exacerbating discretionary judgments by police and prosecutors that may well result in discriminatory application of the laws. The basis on which the balance between these two countervailing considerations is struck in these discussions is not always clear. The paper focuses first on the merits of adopting an approach based on quantitative thresholds and argues that the implications of applying legally mandated drug quantities is in fact not as cut and dried as many authors have assumed. There is an important 'middle way' between the rote application of quantitative measures and their abandonment. This middle way has previously been ignored. The article then addresses exactly how and on what basis quantitative thresholds should be determined if they are to reflect and advance harm reduction principles. Finally, the paper considers and critiques arguments that quantitative thresholds should be set not only by reference to the consumption patterns of users but also in relation to the relative harm of particular substances. As a whole, the essay aims to contribute to a broader international literature on thresholds, a vexed question which matters not only in Canberra, but around the world.

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of lawsuits against veterinarians and correlation of potential risk factors with court decisions

The increase in lawsuits against veterinarians based on recklessness, negligence and malpractice is a current trend since pets are increasingly viewed as part of the family, and legal action is sought if the owner is frustrated with the services rendered by the veterinarian. However, since scarce data exists on this issue, this study aims to quantify and qualify lawsuits filed against veterinarians in the state of São Paulo, Brazil to identify and correlate potential risk factors that may lead to conviction or acquittal of defendants. For this purpose, the methodology employed a search for lawsuits on the website of the São Paulo State Court of Justice, sorted by year; proceedings (summary or special civil court); plaintiff's claim (non-economic damages, economic damages, malpractice, negligence or recklessness); court decision (case granted or denied); reason for judgment (sufficient or insufficient evidence); reverse burden of proof (present or absent); type of evidence (deposition, documentary and expert testimony); value of damages claimed and awarded; location (greater São Paulo or inner state), and whether the lawsuit was filed against a veterinary clinic or hospital. These categories shed light, through bivariate and Poisson regression analyses, on the potential risk factors relative to court decisions. Results demonstrate that reverse burden of proof and insufficient evidence as the basis for judgment were, respectively, risk factors for conviction and acquittal of veterinary practitioners, and the number of lawsuits increased by 533 % over eight years.

[Legal pitfalls in urology]

The juridification of medicine affects all disciplines, including urology. Therefore, in this discipline it can well happen that patients not only feel wrongly treated or complain that a treatment was not performed lege artis but also demand compensation or even bring criminal charges. From the patient point of view, the doctor is often more likely to blame for a complication that has arisen or for a hoped for but failed treatment success, than that it is accepted that a complication is typical for the intervention, which, despite the greatest medical care, unfortunately can become reality and is a fateful course. Insurance against claims for damages can be taken out. Not to be underestimated, however, is the personal burden of the accusations with which doctors are confronted by patients, relatives, expert witnesses and courts and against which one must defend oneself. This can mean additional work in addition to the normal medical workload. Therefore, the legal pitfalls in urology should be known.

[Multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccination : What does the verdict of the European Court of Justice on liability after vaccination mean?]

In June 2017 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a verdict on the legal assessment of the association between hepatitis B immunization and the subsequent manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS). This led to a high level of insecurity in the medical field as well as the normal population, especially in MS patients. The aim of this article is to briefly present the evidence-based medical facts and in particular to clearly highlight the legal aspects of the abovenamed ECJ verdict.

Relevance of medical reports in criminal investigations of cases of suspected child abuse

If a case of physical child abuse is suspected in Germany, the general feeling is often that "it does not matter whether you make a report or not" because, generally, no conviction is made anyway. This study investigates the juridical analysis of complaint cases of physical child abuse [criminal complaint parag. 225 StGB (German penal code) with filial victim]. It focuses on the doctor's role and the impact of their practice in relation to a later conviction. It is based on the analysis of 302 files of the enquiry from 2004-2009 from the department of public prosecution in Cologne, Germany. Besides general epidemiological data on the reporting person, the affected child and the presumed offender, the documents were reassessed for the relevance of medical reports for successful convictions. Only 7% (n = 21) of 302 complaints led to a conviction. In 38.1% (n = 8) of those cases, a medical report was mentioned as a piece of evidence, and just in two cases a (legal) medical report was quoted and mentioned as relevant for the conviction. 50% of the complaint cases with legal medical expertise led to a trial. In contrast, only 30.2% with a common medical report and 7.3% without a report led to a trial. The results show how a medical report existed in only a few cases. In those cases, the rate of performed trials was higher than for those without a medical report, but the report played a minor part when reasoning a verdict.

Uncertain testamentary capacity

This letter illustrates the significance of the legal rules that resolve uncertainty in assessments of testamentary capacity.