Ethical Issues In Positing Law

Positing Law has a main focus on laws being separated from morality. In order for laws to be viewed as just through this theory it is imperative that most members in a given society agree that the laws in question meet the given norm. In the case of Hamilton Health Sciences Corp v. D.H., the courts decide to allow an Aboriginal family to deny chemotherapy for their child in pursuit of an Aboriginal treatment. In Canada it is against the law to kill anyone, the success rate for the child to survive this type of cancer is staggeringly high and with pulling her from this treatment it could be considered first-degree murder. Due to injustices faced by indigenous people the courts looked too much into aboriginal ethics and viewpoints instead of
These rules consist of primary and secondary rules. Primary rules are basic rules found in all societies, which direct what people should do (Pavlich, 2011). In most if not all countries when a child is sick especially with cancer it is a parents responsibility to take their child to the hospital in order for them to receive treatment. Within Canadian culture it is a common consensus within the majority that the life of a child is a very precious and valuable, and one that should not intentionally be harmed in any way. In the case of JJ, her parents intentionally go against the common norm in society by denying their child the life saving chemotherapy she needs. This shows issues of neglect, due to the persistent failure to meet a child’s basic physical and/or psychological needs (NSPCC Inform, 2007). Secondary rule focuses on the primary rules themselves and the ways in which primary rules should be ascertained, introduced and eliminated. Within this we can acknowledge that denying a child of proper lifesaving healthcare, JJs parents are not following the basic rules found within
The justice system denied the claims of the hospital because they agreed that JJ’s parents should have the ultimate right to pull their child from chemo in order to peruse Aboriginal treatment. The court decided this based on not wanting to create uproar between aboriginal communities and the criminal justice system. This decision has a direct correlation between utilitarian views, which states that you can choose to do something wrong in order to have the greater good for society (Smart & Williams, 2008). This is the morality aspect that should not be considered in the outcomes of this case due to the fact that killing a child is wrong and cannot be