{"id":3683,"date":"2012-05-29T17:05:14","date_gmt":"2012-05-29T07:05:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/?p=3683"},"modified":"2012-05-29T17:05:14","modified_gmt":"2012-05-29T07:05:14","slug":"northern-territory-law-journal-update-april-2012","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.thomsonreuters.com.au\/journals\/2012\/05\/29\/northern-territory-law-journal-update-april-2012\/","title":{"rendered":"Northern Territory Law Journal update: April 2012"},"content":{"rendered":"

The latest issue of the Northern Territory Law Journal <\/em>(Volume 2 Part 3) contains the following material:<\/p>\n

Articles<\/h3>\n

The path to statehood: The Northern Territory as Australia\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s seventh State<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em><\/strong>George Williams AO<\/p>\n

This article addresses the place of the Northern Territory under the Australian Constitution, and the status of Territorians as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153secondclass citizens\u00e2\u20ac\u009d. It examines these issues from the perspective of whether they support the Northern Territory pursuing statehood. The article then examines the path to statehood and sets out the means by which statehood may be achieved.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A doctor\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s duty to follow up preventable conditions: Young v Central Australian Aboriginal Congress \u00e2\u20ac\u201c A bridge too far?<\/a> \u00e2\u20ac\u201c <\/em><\/strong>Patrick Bolton<\/p>\n

Until recently, the duty of care imposed on a medical practitioner to follow up a patient only required the doctor to follow up existing conditions. This was in line with the principle of patient autonomy informing the decision in Rogers v Whitaker <\/em>which shifted the arbiter of the standard of medical care from the medical profession under the Bolam <\/em>principle, to the courts. In Young v Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Inc<\/em>, the court effectively extended the duty to follow up to preventable conditions which were latent at the time of the consultation. This article considers the development and juridical basis of the duty and argues that its extension to preventable conditions is contrary to principle and unachievable.<\/p>\n

To purchase this article, complete the Individual Article Sale<\/a> order form and email it to tlranz.journal.orders@thomsonreuters.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Sections<\/h3>\n

CURRENT ISSUE<\/a><\/p>\n