![handle is hein.journals/jnlosclwl24 and id is 1 raw text is:
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law Roudedge
24(1) 2002: iii-iv aR o,&Frnclscmup
Editorial
This first issue of 2002 sees the welcome return of all of our usual sections (Cases,
Ombusdman's, Current Developments, European and Book Reviews), following
the short break introduced for most of them by the SLSA Conference Proceedings
Special Issue at the tail end of last year. These sections will continue to keep journal
readers well-informed on relevant developments in their respective areas. In
this issue, our 'Cases' section includes a discussion of the 'conjoined twins' case
(Re. A), which was analysed in a rather different vein by one of the papers in the
Special Issue. This was clearly an important case, with many commentators reading
worrying and difficult implications into the Law Lords' decision. Readers are
encouraged to read both of these rewarding and substantial pieces for a thorough
overview of the facts of the case itself and for a stimulating introduction to the
controversies and differing opinions it has already aroused.
Our four papers in this issue cover the range through comparative, historical,
contemporary and polemical analyses of socio-legal issues. The first paper, by
Keith Soothill and Brian Francis of the University of Lancaster, traces the
development of the treatment of the crime of incest following the 'Cleveland affair'
of the late 1980s. Using data from both the late 1980s and 1990s and from 1973,
they demonstrate a significant change in the profile of offenders convicted of incest
post-Cleveland. In a thought-provoking analysis of Home Office statistics and other
relevant data, they raise worrying questions about the impact of the 'moral panic'
surrounding the Cleveland Affair on some categories of victims of incest. The
discussion concludes by considering the findings in the light of recent Home Office
proposals to amend the law in this area.
Sue Millns' (University of Kent) paper provides an international perspective on
the eligibility criteria for access to new reproductive technologies for single people
in the UK. She does this by comparing the current UK position on eligibility with
recent developments in the same field in Australia. Her analysis centres on the
decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Victoria) in McBain v. State of Victoria
& others [2000] FCA 1009. In this case, State legislation which prohibited single
women from gaining access to assisted conception services was deemed contrary
to the Federal Commonwealth's Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Notwithstanding
significant differences occasioned by the Federal governmental structure in
Australia, the article considers the relevance of Australian developments in view
of analogous influences in the UK due to the incorporation into domestic law of the
European Convention on Human Rights and the growing interest of European
Union law in issues affecting health care.
Our next contribution comes from Irenka Suto and her colleagues at the
University of Cambridge, who examine the legal framework for substitute decision-
making for adults in England and Wales who lack the capacity to make financial
decisions. This legal framework is centred on the Court of Protection, through
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law
ISSN 0141-8033 print/ISSN 1469-9621 online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/jnlosclwl24&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most