Hello! My name is Noah Nishihara.

I like to say that I still feel like a first year student. I can now add that even though I haven't consciously put into practice the advice found in all the 'how to study law' books I've read, or ticked off the year level-specific career building checklist found in the career guides, there really is no need to worry. Given the present circumstances, as long as I continue to 'be a joiner, look out for others and critique the law', with the passage of time, I will be ready when it's time for the next stage.

I am interested in the future of law. I think there will be opportunities created if the legal system becomes increasingly receptive of new technology. However, the currently available technology isn't capable of properly addressing the limitations of the legal system. I am also interested in how corporations use the law.

Medical law is very much of the most personal relevance to me. Many researchers are stressing the need to replace or do more than the narrow 'duty to inform/disclose'. This is because refusal of consent would go against the wishes of one party. Instead of the present treatment of patients as 'objects' and consent as an annoying and meaningless ritual, researchers are seeking doctor-patient cooperation, but there isn't a good way to enforce cooperation. Professional ethical guidelines and the relevant legislation are only words. Much of the ideal 'doctor-patient cooperation' currently depends on the practitioner's nature and character (for example, doctors with a heavy research background might be more warm, humane, open-minded and objective - conceding limitations and not heavily steeped in pharmacology). Not every patient will be able to experience 'doctor-patient cooperation'.

Many more issues could be addressed by medical law, such as the importance of patient's knowledge/sensation/keen sense of their own body's condition. The doctor is not getting treatment after all. Paternalism isn't justified unless some augmented reality technology enables doctors to go into and become the patient. Then perhaps they could be said to be acting in the best interests of the patient. Knowledge from articles and textbooks isn't enough.

The law could introduce different obligations for different areas of medicine. Important MRIs, physiotherapy, life-saving surgery, emergency procedures require hardly any regulation. On the other hand, the prescription of drugs, use of potentially unnecessary catheters and testing/imaging may require more regulation. What the law should reflect is that, where a procedure is of questionable or no benefit, and is or is possibly harmful, the patient who knows this should be entitled and empowered to refuse with a straight face, and should not be called 'chicken' or 'ass hole' or coerced and pressured. The power imbalance is so apparent. The current law has hardly any effect. It is a problem when the workers within a hospital believe themselves immune from becoming a patient. They could slip and fall the next day, become immobile, and experience the suffering as easy as that. Then they would understand and 'empathise' with the 'patients who refuse' in their own 'true best interest'. I daresay very few of them truly believe the medicine they practice. They understand the truth and will refuse surgeries and avoid admission to hospital.

In any case, something is in need of improvement in hospital systems around the world. Mere words and gestures by people sitting far from the centre of action: https://www.hcscc.sa.gov.au/2020/07/30/news-release-a-better-public-health-system-for-people-with-disabilities/ is hardly enough. As a 'carer' of a person with disability, I have seen in my own mistakes and actions the mistakes and actions of others I observed - including nurses and doctors. Much appears to be related to the limitations of individual people rather than anything in a professional capacity. After criticising others, I myself took things for granted, acted unfairly and unprofessionally, coerced and complained. I cannot feel the chronic pain - side effects of unnecessary treatment, nor the difficulty of every action. All I see is outwardly - a person who appears to be fine enough. There are no answers to this and other related matters.

The contentious branch of mental health law is another topic I could write books about in the future. Again, what makes this a serious problem is the use of drugs. Mere wrongful incarceration might be tolerable somewhat. The issues in the profession of psychiatry in general, the scope and abuse of psychiatrists' unfettered powers, and the weak legislation to hold everything to account combine to create the hardest-ever problem to solve.

Involuntary incarceration could be used as a tool against friends or family members whereby the accused gets locked up and drugged while the accuser can successfully financially abuse the victim whether by gaining control of assets or asking for a disability pension. Even if released, the victim has been ruined, for they will put drugs in the food and nobody will be kind enough to inform potential victims. To add further insult, the accuser can allay their guilty conscience by saying 'it was in their interest to have their life ruined'.

What should have existed is an immediate tribunal hearing rather than a week or months later. The strict process laid out in the NSW legislation was barely followed in that case. The psychiatrist should have had legal obligations to gather real evidence from more than one party to prove 'suspected dangerousness'. The 2007 NSW legislation is drafted in a way that is open and welcoming to abuse. There should have been even one safeguard at least, to ensure this was not a mistaken arrest. But there was and is none. In SA some legal representation does exist but it is not given emphasis. The law is procedural and does not turn its mind to the possibility of malice or mistake. What is holding society back from massive psychiatric chaos is the fact that most families are functional and treat each other well. In any event, the law needs reform.

While there may be cases justifying incarceration, to inadvertently imprison even one innocent citizen cannot be acceptable. Interestingly, some authors overlook the possibility of mistake or malice, and seek to remove incarceration entirely, while others have leaped even further ahead and have called for prisons to be abolished. While established institutions will remain existing, it mustn't be a vehicle for perpetrating injustice.

Further, where a victim can prove that they were falsely imprisoned, ex gratia payments should be available, much like those for falsely accused criminals. There should be no need to consider the matter of whether they were 'dangerous' at the time, but oral testimony from other relatives as well as whatever medical records remain, could be considered. Failing that, the courts must become brave enough to state that, much like the 'duty to disclose', a victim's mental health will ultimately be judged by the courts. Psychiatric evidence could be taken into account but are not to be determinative. The court could ignore evidence if it finds it 'irrational' (as used for standard of care assessments).

The issue of false imprisonment in a mental hospital is quite similar to many other issues plaguing society, for example, the allegations against the current Attorney-General. In many cases one may forget but not forgive. The odds are always against the victims. Perhaps the achievement of justice is of little importance in these cases. Rather, the younger generations should remember these experiences and reflect on them. That is the value it has. Much like the world wars, we are meant to think about them and never repeat past mistakes.