Compensating Organ Donors: Commodification or Freedom?

The Commonwealth government has today announced a ‘grant’ scheme for live organ donors. The scheme will pay live organ donors the minimum wage for six weeks following donation, with the aim of supporting them financially.

Such a decision is likely to ignite the debate over the morality of payment for 'transactions' involving the human body. There are two sides to this debate: the risk of commodification of the human; and the freedom and autonomy of donors to choose how they deal with their body.

Paying the Tax Man

Students of taxation law often see little connection between tax and other practice areas. In reality, tax tends to raise a variety of interesting issues in almost every other field of law. This post is about one such example.

Those who have bought and sold real property would be aware that at 'settlement' the buyer pays the purchase price and in exchange, they receive the clear title to the land. Clear title means that any mortgage over the property is released. To release the mortgage, the seller's mortgagee will need to be paid out. Usually, all this happens in one place at the same time. While it looks like a single seamless transaction, in fact it involves two discrete transactions: that between the outgoing mortgagee and the seller; and that between the seller and the buyer.

A 2012 decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court has called into question the position of hte releasing mortgagee at settlement through the operation of a tax statute.

Women's rights are human rights

Nurse-in on Bribie Island*

Well the double standard is alive and well on social media today.  Outrage - outrage - at women staging a 'nurse in' outside the Sunrise studios. The tenor of this outrage on Twitter seems to be somehow that David Koch, in calling for women to be discreet and classy in their breastfeeding habits, is simply expressing opinion and that this is not deserving of protest.

Why is Breastfeeding Scary?

Breastfeeding: it's good enough for the Saviour, why not for all?*

Daily morning TV presenter David Koch today told his audience that breastfeeding is something that should be done away from a public area – that women breastfeeding in ‘high traffic areas’ should be a ‘bit discreeter’. He made these comments in response to a report that a woman breastfeeding at a public swimming pool in Queensland was told that she could not do so, and that she should move to another secluded area or leave. 

This request is clearly in breach of s7AA(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (added to the Act in 2011), in that this woman was treated:

less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat someone who is not breastfeeding.

This set of circumstances raises three related questions: why the woman may have been asked to leave; why ‘Kochie’ would have agreed that this was appropriate; and why breastfeeding would ever require such legal protection.

Faster, higher, sexier: women in sport

Sportswomen in the media - as rare as unicorns*

Sports writers Phil Rothfield and Darren Hadland, in a ‘lighthearted review of the year’s sports highlights’, today declared Black Caviar, a horse, as ‘Sportswoman of the Year’.

Their 'Sportsman of the Year' is the Australian cricket captain, Michael Clarke.

In response to outrage on social media, Rothfield pointed out that Black Caviar is a girl and implied that the piece was funny.  Unfortunately, as Wendy Harmer has so effectively pointed out, this is wrong.  He is possibly wondering why so many are so angry.

Buying a book: How hard can it be?

Books as things no longer?*

The news this week that ebooks purchased from Barnes & Noble will self-destruct upon the expiry of the purchaser’s credit card, again raises the question of what exactly is an e-thing, and what are we buying.

I’ve written before about the nature of virtual goods at law, and whether they constitute property or not.  The issue here is related.

Is my body my own?

Sadly, late last month, an Indian woman, Savita Halappanavar, died of septicemia in an Irish hospital.  The source of her infection was her dying foetus.  Yet doctors refused her the termination that would save her life, because the dying foetus still had a heartbeat.  The life of this woman ended because, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the 'life' (such as it was) of the foetus was paramount.

While press reports indicate that in Ireland obstetricians have a duty to act in the best interests of the mother, there is apparently a lack of clarity in this jurisdiction as to when the medical profession can intervene lawfully.

This case highlights, yet again, the issue of bodily integrity for women and the extent of State intervention into women's autonomy over themselves.  This concern is not limited to Ireland, but exists around the world.