In presenting the history and nature of the parens patriae in State of Queensland v B  , an interpretation of the jurisdiction as described by Chesterman J in State of Queensland v Nolan is presented. This is a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation is one in which the plain meaning is taken. This is usually an interpretation that is strictly presented word by work even if it risks looking insensible for the context. Usually the literal rule is applied in such cases where it is quite clear why the rule is required, and therefore there is really no context for interpretation. The literal rule as applied in this case is the justification of requesting a parens patriate. The parens patriate is basically the authority for protection in a situation where the person in question will not be able to protect themselves. As interpreted for application to this case, it is understood that no more clarification is required here.
Golden interpretation Rules
Consider section 282 of the criminal code as presented in State of Queensland v B  . This is the criminal code for surgical operations. Now according to this section, it is interpreted that a person cannot be criminally responsible for performing a surgery in good faith on an unborn child for the purpose of helping the mother’s life. Such a medical practitioner cannot be held criminally responsible for the fetus death according to K v T . The Judge rejects this because according to medical advice, a surgery was not a sound option for termination of pregnancy or to save the mother’s mental health. Now the golden rule as applicable here is that, sometimes an exception to the literal rule is necessary especially in such cases where the original meaning or intention is circumvented. In the case of Grey v Pealson (1857), it was established by Lord Wensleygale that where there is absurdity and inconsistency, then the rule should not be applied. Thus here, although according to the criminal code for surgical operations, surgery performed in good faith will not be cause for criminal action. The very nature of B left medical people incapable of choosing the surgery option, so literal interpretation need not be applied here.
I agree with the judgement of the court that the termination procedure needed the consent of the court more than the consent of the parents.
Now according to the decision in Marion’s case, it is identified that in the case of a procedure involving consent where there are many complex issues involved such as the clash of interests and gravity of a wrong decision, then it is necessary to involve the court and give the court the right of consent similar to the parens patriate. A complex decision making such as Marion’s involves something that is beyond the normal consent procedures that a parent would work with. It involves giving consent for a therapeutic procedure that is irreversible. If Marion wanted to deal with it when she was grown up, then it would be an issue. It would be an issue as it is her parents and not her who consented to something that would have an impact on her future. Therefore, in such a context, it is necessary to accept the judgment of the court and give the court parens patriate. The ruling in State of Queensland v B  is hence correct.
英国论文代写Advanced Thesis网站平台是一家论文代写信誉高的留学教育机构，其中有24小时专业客服为留学们提供随时在线咨询服务，还有一些硕士论文代写、paper代写、essay代写、assignment代写等服务， 英国论文代写Advanced Thesis 会以专业认真的教学态度来帮助留学生们完成学业目标，从而顺利拿到专属自己的学位证书！而且以上提供的论文范文，未经授权任何人不得私自转发，如有发现将依法追究其法律责任！