Freckelton Ian
Crockett Chambers, Melbourne, Australia.
J Law Med. 2009 Oct;17(2):178-83.
A significant number of court decisions in Australia have wrestled with the issue of who among equally ranked next-of-kin should have priority in determining the timing and place of a loved one's burial or cremation. The first port of call for such decision-making can be the coroner who must determine to whom to release a body, where a death has been reportable, but disputation occurs also in non-coronial contexts and has repeatedly fallen for resolution by Supreme Court judges. The decisions have identified a variety of practical considerations which have been taken into account. However, there remains considerable uncertainty about the significance of factors such as religious, spiritual and cultural values, as well as the nature and extent of the care-giving role, as influential considerations in respect of courts' decisions. While greater predictability of courts' decision-making might be therapeutic, it may be that the variability of factual situations precludes the construction of a hierarchy of relevant considerations.
在同等地位的近亲中,谁在决定亲人葬礼或火化的时间和地点时应享有优先权。此类决策首先要找验尸官,在死亡须上报但存在争议的情况下,验尸官必须确定将尸体交给谁。不过,在非验尸官介入的情况下也会出现争议,最高法院法官多次对此进行裁决。这些判决确定了各种已被考虑的实际因素。然而,宗教、精神和文化价值观等因素的重要性,以及照顾角色的性质和程度,作为影响法院判决的因素,其重要性仍存在很大不确定性。虽然法院决策的更高可预测性可能具有治疗作用,但事实情况的多样性可能使构建相关考虑因素的等级制度变得不可能。