An open letter about Charlie Gard to House Speaker Paul Ryan

Dear Speaker Ryan

Like many of your fellow countrymen and women, you have been following the heart-breaking case of Charlie Gard, the little baby who is desperately ill with mitochondrial disease in London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital. Despite a ruling from our highest courts that doctors would be acting lawfully if they turned off the ventilator which is keeping him alive, a tiny flame of hope continues to flicker. Charlie’s remarkable parents refused to concede that his condition was hopeless and – despite having had the legal authority to stop treating him – his doctors have in fact continued to keep him alive.

The Family Court has now agreed to re-examine the case in the light of possible fresh evidence. The latest development is that Dr Michio Hirano, a neurologist and specialist in mitochondrial disease from Columbia University, will examine Charlie at Great Ormond Street tomorrow. Dr Hirano has been very cautious. At best he gives about a 10% chance of his treatment being effective, and even if it does work to some extent it may not produce much improvement. Charlie has suffered brain damage and even Dr Hirano is not optimistic that that can be reversed. The odds are still against him surviving and even more against him improving but we all hope, and those who share your strong religious faith will pray.

You have tweeted about the case. As Speaker of the House of Representatives your tweets are seen by millions. There is no problem with that. It is a good thing to contribute to the discussion about our healthcare and legal systems. No doubt there is a great deal that we can learn from each other about our respective medical and legal systems. We are some way off perfection in both, as (if you will forgive me for saying) are you. But I am just a little concerned that in your rush to support Charlie’s parents you may have inadvertently overlooked some of the complicated issues that the case has highlighted.

You tweeted this:

I stand with #CharlieGard & his parents. Health care should be between patients & doctors—govt has no place in the life or death business.”

We would all like to stand with Charlie Gard and his parents. Even if I’m not quite sure what “standing with” them actually means in practice, your generous sentiments are quite clear. Nobody would disagree with you that wherever possible it is doctors and patients who should make decisions about medical treatment. Unfortunately – and this is the first point that you may have overlooked – Charlie is not in a position to participate in any such decision.

But your reference to “government” left me feeling most uneasy. It seemed to imply that our government was in some sense standing in the way of Charlie getting the treatment he needs, or even that it was in some way trying to bring about his death. Perhaps you didn’t mean that – it is easy to over-simplify in 140 characters – but if you did you are not alone. Judging by social media, lots of your compatriots believe that our government has decided that Charlie should be allowed to die, or even deliberately killed. Others blame what they disparagingly call a “socialist” medical system, our National Health Service.

But if you do in fact think our government is trying to influence what happens to Charlie, then with the very greatest of respect you are wrong. Apart from providing a court and a judge it has played no part whatever in the case. It is true that Great Ormond Street Hospital – a world-renowned centre of excellence for treating sick children – is partly funded by the state, but that does not mean the government has any say over its doctors’ clinical decisions. It is not a party to the case, it does not care who “wins” (although it makes little sense to talk about “winning” a case like this), and if the Minister for Health told either a doctor or a judge what they should decide in any particular case, they would very firmly tell him to mind his own business (and a United States politician trying to do it would probably elicit the same response). The point is that our government, will not, would not, has not and cannot interfere in the case at all.

As you say the government has no place in the “life or death business.” If you mean that government should never make clinical decisions, then we can certainly agree. If you mean that government should never make money available for medical care, then we don’t agree.

But let’s not get distracted in arguments about who should be paying for medical care. It is irrelevant to Charlie’s case, partly because shortage of money has never been an issue in his treatment, and partly because in any event his parents have raised enough money for him to be treated privately in America should that ever be necessary.

Let’s come back to your point that “health care should be between doctors and patients.” Unfortunately – and again it’s probably the fault of Twitter’s space restrictions – this admirable principle doesn’t take us very far and it certainly doesn’t help us answer the question of what should happen in Charlie’s case. Charlie doesn’t have a view, and even if he did he could not make it known. We can assume, I suppose, that if he were able to talk he would probably say that he did not wish to be in pain, and that he would like his condition cured if at all possible.

What I think you mean is that in cases involving young children like Charlie “health care should be between doctors and parents.” And again, that is a fine principle most of the time; but it doesn’t work once doctors and parents disagree about what treatment should be given. (Of course it sometimes doesn’t work because parents disagree between themselves about what should happen, but at least that’s not a complication in this case). Who should then make the final decision: doctors or parents?

How should we resolve a dispute when parents and doctors disagree about treatment? In 99% of cases this doesn’t arise. Both doctors and parents want children to be cured, or if a cure is impossible at least to have the best possible life. Doctors do their best to advise on what treatment is best, bearing in mind the terribly difficult dilemmas that medicine has a way of producing: just as an example, is it always worth putting a baby through months of painful chemotherapy in order to buy a few precious extra months of life, or is it sometimes better to let that baby die in as painless and comfortable a way as possible? Even where there is no easy answer doctors and parents are usually able to agree in cases like these.

But not always, which is the problem here. What happens when the parents’ view is that treatment should be provided when in the view of the doctors it is simply not in the child’s best interests to have treatment? And what happens when – as may turn out to be the case here – even doctors themselves do not agree?

This, surely, is when the law has to become involved. I really don’t know what your alternative would be. I am sure you have thought about it, and if there is an alternative to a court deciding then please do tell us. It would be a very useful contribution to the debate.

However, assuming the dispute must be resolved legally, the question then arises: how should courts decide these dilemmas? It is no good wringing our hands in anguish, or sniping at the bona fides of the doctors; somehow a decision has to be made.

Judges cannot just decide each case on an ad hoc basis, or apply different principles to each case. The essence of the common law system which our countries share, is that rules are laid down by statute or precedent, and those rules must then be followed. What should the rules say about a case where parents and doctors disagree?

Life at all costs?

One answer might be to say that because life is so precious the courts should always choose the option that prolongs it as long as possible. A person might hold the view that all life is sacred, therefore every possible effort must be made to prolong it, however painful and onerous that life might be.

That is close to the position of the Roman Catholic Church (to which I think you belong), but it is not quite the Church’s position. Pope Francis has offered to help, and stressed in a tweet that is not quite as unambiguous as it at first seems:

To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.

Catholic doctrine, as explained in John Paul II’s evangelium vitae, regards euthanasia – deliberate and intentional mercy-killing – as a sin, but it distinguishes euthanasia from:

… the decision to forego so-called “aggressive medical treatment”, in other words, medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family. In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in conscience “refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted” …. It needs to be determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.”

So a rule of law that says doctors should always continue treatment to extend life as long as possible is not demanded even by the Catholic Church. John Paul saw the cruelty in forcing patients to endure a “precarious and burdensome prolongation of life.” It is not the law either here or in your country, and I very much doubt that you think it should be.

Parents should always have the right to choose?

Another possibility would be a rule that the parents should always be the people to make the final decision. This is a principle that your Republican colleague & former Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz supports. He too has jumped on what looks a bit like an anti-government bandwagon, tweeting:

No hospital, no gov’t has the right to deny parents their chance for a medical miracle. I stand with #CharlieGard.”

Fox News Presenter Tucker Carlson thinks the same:

The parents of #Charlie Gard should be able to decide his medical care.”

Yet a moment’s thought makes it clear how wrong such a rule would be if it was applied inflexibly. Children would lose their individual rights and become mere chattels of their parents. In almost all cases parents want to do the best they can for their beloved children, but sometimes they can be wrong. A loving parent might, for example, wish to refuse treatment on religious grounds – say a life-saving blood transfusion in the case of a Jehovah’s Witness. Can it really be right that in those circumstances the religious wishes of the parents should over-ride the child’s right to life?

Or sometimes the boot may be on the other foot and parents may wish to insist on treatment that simply cannot succeed; an operation, let us say, to remove a tumour when it would be futile because the cancer has spread throughout the body. Should the courts force a child to undergo objectively pointless treatments simply because the parents insist? I cannot believe that is really what you think.

Parents should choose unless child will be caused significant harm by their choice?

There is more difficulty when medical opinion is divided. Perhaps where there is uncertainty about the medical position, the parents should be entitled to choose between the various medical options. The parents, if you like, would have a casting vote. It is certainly a more defensible position than giving the parents the right to do whatever they want with their children. No doubt in many cases, faced with two or more reasonable alternatives, allowing the parents to choose is very sensible. At the very least, everyone agrees that the parents’ view should be given great weight.

When Charlie’s case was appealed, his parents argued that unless he would thereby suffer “significant harm,” the court should allow them to take him to America for treatment. The judges decided that even if a likelihood of “significant harm” was the legal test to apply (and they left the question open), it was in fact satisfied because keeping Charlie alive for a treatment with a “vanishingly small” chance of recovering meaningful brain activity would be likely to expose him to continuing pain, suffering and distress if he was kept alive to endure the treatment.

Best interests of the child?

In any dispute involving a child’s medical treatment, the duty of an English or Welsh court is to choose the course which, in the view of the judge, in the child’s best interests. Ultimately, that issue trumps all others.

This is the test that the courts must apply in England, and it has two advantages. First and most importantly it puts the child – the person most affected by the decision – at the centre of consideration. Secondly, it is simple to understand, if not always simple to apply.

You probably have not had a chance to look at the “position statement” filed by Great Ormond Street Hospital for the purposes of the latest litigation. If you have a moment please do. It explains the position of the hospital far better than I could. This is what the hospital says about its philosophy of putting the child’s interests above those of all others including, on occasion, even parents:

A world where only parents speak and decide for children and where children have no separate identity or rights and no court to hear and protect them is far from the world in which GOSH treats its child patients.”

I don’t know whether it would be best for Charlie’s treatment to be ended, and I am afraid I rather doubt that you do either. I was not persuaded by our judges’ argument that Charlie should be allowed to “die with dignity.” Given his young age, apparent lack of consciousness and his parents’ obvious wishes the rather nebulous concept of “dignity” doesn’t really deserve to be put into the equation at all. What matters is not his dignity but whether he is suffering, and whether that suffering will continue for no good reason if the treatment is attempted.

On the other hand I was convinced by those parts of the judgments which found that the prospect of successful treatment was in effect zero, while the chance that he was suffering was significant; but if there is new evidence it is obviously right that the court should look at the case again. Quite rightly it has agreed to do just that. Perhaps there is a chance that Charlie can be kept alive artificially, free from any risk of pain. If so, and if there is a small but real chance that the treatment may produce some meaningful improvement it would be right for the judge to change his mind. If not, and if the chances of a significant improvement in his condition remain “vanishingly small” then I would agree that the time has come to withdraw his treatment. Whatever the views of his parents, his best interests do not require what John Paul II would regard as “a precarious and burdensome prolongation of his life” to pursue treatment that will almost certainly make no difference.

So finally, just to re-emphasise this Mr Ryan, Mr Cruz and Mr Carlson: I am sure you want to be helpful, but if you are going to comment about a case like this you have to be particularly careful with your facts so that you don’t accidentally mislead or over-simplify. It is an agonising case to be sure, and it is inevitable that people of good-will will have different views on what its outcome should be; but some things that you may have inadvertently implied are simply not true. Our government is not trying to kill Charlie; our doctors, who have dedicated their lives to treating thousands of children, are not doing the government’s bidding by trying to kill Charlie; and of course nobody with the slightest knowledge of our legal system thinks that our judges, as they wrestle with an intensely difficult and emotional case, are the government’s stooges.

The post An open letter about Charlie Gard to House Speaker Paul Ryan appeared first on BarristerBlogger.

Source: http://barristerblogger.com/2017/07/16/open-letter-charlie-gard-house-speaker-paul-ryan/

A Simple Analysis Of Picking Significant Aspects In Trademark Search

Have a list of questions for yourself as you meet with potential lawyers. Check their professionalism from the neatness of their office. Did the lawyer and office staff seem friendly and professional? Were they dressed appropriately? Pay attention to how long it takes for them to return your calls or emails. Make sure they keep appointments most of the time.
online trademark search You should always remain open to changing your mind when new facts come up. Leaders who will not change their mind despite proof that the decision is wrong will lose the confidence of their employees. Having the flexibility to admit your mistakes and make corrections can often mean the difference between success and failure.

To learn more about trademarking visit Cookies are Not Accepted – New York Times


Source: https://trademarkfactoryblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/a-simple-analysis-of-picking-significant-aspects-in-trademark-search/

Alberta Corporations Law Guide

Essential for anyone dealing with Alberta corporate law, the Alberta Corporations Law Guide gives you comprehensive, up-to-date coverage. In this one publication, you’ll have all relevant Acts and regulations, decisions, rulings, releases, tables of concordance, reference charts, and forms affecting the formation of companies and societies and their legal operation under Alberta law. Also included is commentary prepared exclusively by the law firm Bennett Jones LLP.

What’s New:

  • Amendments to significant legislation and regulations added, including to Business Corporations Act, Companies Act, Coorperative Act, Credit Union Act, Interpretation Act, Legal Profession Act, Loan and Trust Corporations Act, Partnership Act, Regulated Accounting Profession Act, Securities Act, and Cooperatives Act Regulation
  • Significant cases reported include Aronowicz v. Emtwo Properties Inc., Danso-Coffey v. The Queen, Zildjian v. Sabian Ltd., Bruni v. Garlicki, Burnham v. Augen Gold Corp., Link v. Venture Steel, Inc., Computershare Trust Co. v. Crystallex International Corp., Shopples.com Corp. v. Brown, Bhangoo v. Soon, Runnalls v. Regent Holdings Ltd., and In re Magna International Inc.
  • Table of Concordance to Canadian Corporations Legislation updated 

Commentary covers such key topics as:

  • Incorporation
  • Corporate Finance
  • Directors and Officers
  • Shareholders
  • Borrowing and Investments
  • Reorganizations and Takeovers
  • Investigation, Remedies, Offences, and Penalties
  • Continuance
  • Insider trading and Financial Disclosure
  • Extra-provincial Corporations
  • Liquidation and Dissolution

Included with your subscription is Corporate Brief, a monthly newsletter containing feature articles, digests of recent cases, and updates to legislation.

Subscribe to the online version and access Corporate Law News Tracker. With the News Tracker, you get notices of all updates via e-mail. Your updates give you instant access to changes in corporate law that originate from a variety of primary and secondary sources such as press releases and cases.

If you would like more details about this product, or would like to order a copy online, please click here.


Source: http://www.cch.ca/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?WebID=100012&tid=17

Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Manual

The Alternative Dispute Resolution Practice Manual has been carefully compiled to give you everything you need to speed up the resolution of disputes in the following practice areas:

  • Commercial Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Family Law
  • School Mediation
  • Employment and Labour Law
  • Landlord and Tenant Law

Key topics include:

  • Dispute Resolution Spectrum
  • Arbitration
  • Mediation
  • Mini-trials
  • Negotiation
  • Liability of ADR Neutrals
  • Court-annexed ADR
  • Preparing for and Attending Mediation
  • ADR in the Workplace

The manual also provides checklists, legislation, rules of various arbitration and mediation organizations, selected international material, a directory of dispute resolution centers and services, as well as sample agreements, clauses and practical “how to” advice. Included with your subscription is the quarterly newsletter, ADR Forum.

Number of Volumes: 2

If you would like more details about this product, or would like to order a copy online, please click here.


Source: http://www.cch.ca/Products/ProductDetail.aspx?WebID=1012&tid=16

Some Emerging Opportunities In Fundamental Aspects In Online Trademark Search

Your lawyer may not feel that your case is a current top priority. In fact, your attorney may have other cases that are more pressing than yours. Just remember to be patient.
free trademark search

There is also a great emphasis on privacy in Delaware, which asks for minimum information while firms are incorporated. The Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL) is the basis for incorporating companies in Delaware and this is the law that governs the internal affairs of a company and defines the relationship between the stockholders and managers of a business. On March 13, 2017, the #trademarking Delaware Corporate Law Council proposed amendments to the DGCL that would allow corporations incorporated in the state to use “networks of electronic databases (such as distributed ledgers) to create and administer corporate records.” These changes were a part of the Delaware Blockchain Initiative. Now, if all goes well starting August 1, 2017, Delaware would become the first state to allow companies to start issuing and tracking shares on a distributed ledger or Blockchain. An apt development considering the state’s tagline “First State,” a name that has stuck since they were the first to ratify the US Constitution. The Delaware Blockchain Initiative is revolutionary and it has some key elements, the most important of them being that virtual currency and Blockchain businesses will not face new prescriptive regulations in the state. According to a blog published by the state , adding shares to the Blockchain has several potential benefits: “The key benefits of blockchain shares are that participants share a single database: a distributed ledger. As such, trades can execute instantaneously, without reliance on intermediaries, and settlement is guaranteed. “T+3” settlement delays need no longer exist. Voting and other governance processes can be included in the blockchain processes. Both publicly traded and privately held companies might benefit from the efficiencies of a blockchain ledger.” Jack Markell, the former governor of Delaware, introduced the Delaware Blockchain Initiative in May 2016, with the initiative having the ability to transform the process through which companies are incorporated. Blockchain-based processes would be involved in many basic and legal documents, which these firms file with the Delaware Division of Companies during incorporation. In a post by Andrea Tinianow of the Delaware Blockchain Initiative on the Harvard Law Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, the move of the state to authorize distributed ledger shares is touted as significant and more than just an upgrade to the shareholder recordkeeping tools.

Leaders must attack problems that intimidate others. It is not always safe to be a leader. Good leaders take risks and can see opportunities on the horizon. Remember that lawyers are not miracle workers. If you find a lawyer that assures you he or she will win, no matter what, that means that they’re lying to you and need to be avoided. With court battles, nothing is a given, so try to avoid lawyers who say this.

To read more about online trademark search visit an updated analysis of finding details in trademarkability

To learn more about keyword visit Simple Guidelines On Clear-cut Strategies In Best Trademark Lawyer


Source: https://trademarkfactoryblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/some-emerging-opportunities-in-fundamental-aspects-in-online-trademark-search/

Practical Guidelines For Finding Aspects In Online Trademark Search

Always know how to get a hold of your lawyer should you need him. One of the most common complaints people have about lawyers is being unable to get in #trademarkfactory touch. You don’t need to wonder if it’s because they’re golfing. See if there are any court appearances you can handle by yourself. While facing your trial on your own is a bad idea, often a court appearance is merely a formality, as well a a chance to schedule the next appearance. Save on some billing, and handle such things yourself.
trademarkability Work should be fun. This doesn’t mean you should put an inflatable castle in your office, but you should make people more excited about coming into work. You must be able to say you love your job, and if you don’t, then it’s time to look for a different one.

NORPAC Foods sells canning business to Seneca Foods The farmer-owned cooperative will close a processing facility in Salem. Check out this story on statesmanjournal.com: http://stjr.nl/2u7URu4 A link has been sent to your friend’s email address. A link has been posted to your Facebook feed. NORPAC Foods sells canning business to Seneca Foods Lauren E Hernandez , Statesman Journal Published 12:51 p.m. PT June 30, 2017 | Updated 5:25 p.m. PT June 30, 2017 The canning division represented a smaller and smaller percentage of the cooperative’s operations. Statesman Journal NORPAC announced Friday that it has sold the canning division of the company to Seneca Foods. (Photo: Special to the Statesman Journal) 449 CONNECT TWEET LINKEDIN 3 COMMENTEMAILMORE NORPAC Foods, a fruit and vegetable processor representing more than 200 Oregon growers, has sold its canning business to Seneca FoodsCorp. The farmer-owned cooperative will close its beet processing plant in Salem and its Hermiston processing facility by the end of 2017.  “In our 93 years as a farmer-owned cooperative, our canning business has been an important part of our history, but over time, it gradually represented a smaller percentage of our overall business,” Shawn Campbell, NORPAC president and chief executive officer, said in a statement. Canning operations account for 6 percent of NORPAC’s overall business, said spokeswoman Amy Wood. NORPAC officials declined to comment on the number of workers affected by the closures. Some workers may be funneled into open positions at other NORPAC packaging and processing operations, Wood said.  NORPAC will continue manufacturing canned products for Marion, New York-based Seneca though late 2017.  The cooperative’s canning and labeling plants in Brooks and Stayton will be redesigned to make room for additional frozen vegetable processing in 2018 as part of this transition.  Hermiston is the cooperative’s smallest operation, employing full-time, part-time and seasonal employees. Wood said NORPAC could not disclose the number of Hermiston workers.

To read more about best trademark lawyer visit the opportunities in selecting criteria of trademark search


Source: https://trademarkfactoryblog.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/practical-guidelines-for-finding-aspects-in-online-trademark-search/