Abstract
SUMMARY Digitisation of information compels a revision of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and its associated technologies. This arises because 4IR technologies, for example, the Internet of Things (IoT), Big or Massive Data, Artificial intelligence (AI), augmented or virtual reality and machine learning, drastically adjust the manner in which an information society operates. Specifically, they present unprecedented opportunities for business, economy and online user or consumers. Furthermore, they profoundly model and re-model productions. As a result, the conventional lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres become imprecise. Given the extent of the transformation that 4IR technologies bring to society, it has become necessary to refer to them as the disruptive technologies. However, the inquiry is to what extent is the information society ready to take advantage of disruptive technologies and control some of the setbacks that emanate from therefrom? For regulatory purposes, how electronic or e-ready regulators are to control the adverse consequences that are associated with disruptive technologies? To address these questions, this paper discusses some of the selected theories for technology regulations (artificial immune system (AIS) theory and theory for Lex Informatica). The theories are not technology regulations, as such. Simply, they concede that technology regulations should encourage a proper scrutiny of the position of the technologies in the information society.
Highlights
A physician who assists by way of giving a patient a lethal prescription, which the patient may use to bring about his death, is commonly referred to as physician-assisted suicide
If the physician is called upon to assist with administering the lethal prescription, he or she engages in physician-assisted euthanasia
On 17 April 2015, Stransham-Ford approached the High Court for an order that would declare that the common law crime of murder in the context of physician-assisted euthanasia (PAE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) was unjustly limiting his constitutional right to dignity and his right to bodily and psychological integrity
Summary
A physician who assists by way of giving a patient a lethal prescription, which the patient may use to bring about his death, is commonly referred to as physician-assisted suicide. A court confronted with a challenge to the absolute prohibition of physician-assisted euthanasia (PAE) and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) would have to consider how the principles of criminal law should be applied and adopted to the present day. The research reflects on the court’s attempt to develop the common law It does so by considering whether the court followed a proper remedy when it held that the prohibition on PAE and PAS requires development to give effect to Stransham-Ford’s constitutional right to dignity and his right to bodily and psychological integrity.[5] Turning to the thesis of the research, the paper argues that the High Court in StranshamFord v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services[6] adopted a remedy that was inappropriate for developing the common law.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
