Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Apologising for negligence

By Prue Vines - posted Tuesday, 20 December 2011


This has been a problem in Australia where medical practitioners being trained to do Open Disclosure in hospitals are often told that they can only express regret, because most Australian legislation (with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales and Queensland) only protects expressions of regret (partial apologies) from liability.

The sincerity of apologies is an important and complex issue. There is some concern that protecting apologies makes them unreal. In my opinion, it is preferable to protect apologies in order to reduce the chilling effect of the traditional advice on civil society. What the protection does is not to prevent or create liability, but rather, to leave the liability to be determined on the other evidence.

In my opinion this legislation is very welcome, but it must apply to what I call 'full' apologies. That is, apologies which include an admission of fault. Queensland recently changed its legislation from protection of partial apology to full apology. If all Australian jurisdictions can do the same thing we will be on the way to having a coherent set of laws concerning apologies. This will allow people to apologise for their moral fault, without that moral fault being potentially mixed up with the question of legal liability, and without the confusion created by the current situation in, for example, medical malpractice.

Advertisement

Although morality and law need to be connected, we do not regard morality and law as the same as each other. Thus, it really is important, for the working of civil society, that people can make a full apology when it is warranted without being stultified by fears about litigation. That is a different issue.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Prue Vines is a member of the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales. She teaches Foundations of Law, the law of Torts and the law of Succession.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Prue Vines

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Prue Vines
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy