Gastrostomy tube (G-tube) removal has been suggested at 3 months following successful renal transplantation (Tx). We noticed a delay in the removal of G-tubes in our pediatric patients following Tx and therefore conducted a cross-sectional single center survey on all renal transplant recipients to assess the causes of delayed G-tube removal. In total, 17 of 23 patients completed the survey, including all patients with G-tubes (n = 10) and seven patients without G-tubes. Median age at Tx of gastrostomy patients was significantly lower than that of patients without a G-tube (median 3.0 yr, range 1.2-4.7 yr vs. median 14 yr, range 6-17 yr, p < 0.0001) and significantly younger than in previous studies on gastrostomies. At the time of the survey, only three of 10 patients had their G-tube removed at 22, 41 and 61 months after Tx at the ages of 3, 5.5 and 9 yr, respectively. The median age at recent follow up of the remaining seven patients was 4.7 yr (range 2.6-8.75 yr). The most important reason for continued use was fluid intake and medication. Results of our survey showed appropriate concern regarding the risk of prolonged use of the gastrostomy. Caregivers felt that benefits of the gastrostomy in the post-transplant period outweighed the risks. Caregivers felt pressured towards removal by the physicians. Our findings support the decision to remove gastrostomies based on individual patient needs and total fluid intake rather than a fixed time following successful Tx.

This article maps out the current literature and trends in Canada in the area of restorative justice and intimate violence. It focuses on feminist and women-centred approaches to the debates and controversies in this area. The article concludes with a recommendation for a moratorium on new restorative justice initiatives dealing with intimate violence.

This article in scrapbook form represents the endeavour of the eight authors to document a recent, collective, academic journey. The project was one embarked upon as a means to explore tensions between the ideas of embodiment that connected our work, and the rigidities of academic convention. Using various media, this article strives, in substance and form, to provoke, challenge and confront its audience into dialogue, while simultaneously asking questions about the limits of our own legal imaginations.

<p>While colonial imposition of the Canadian legal order has undermined Indigenous law, creating gaps and sometimes distortions, Indigenous peoples have taken up the challenge of rebuilding their laws, governance, and economies. Indigenous conceptions of land and property are central to this project.</p> <p><em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> identifies how contemporary Indigenous conceptions of property are rooted in and informed by their societally specific norms, meanings, and ethics. Through detailed analysis, the authors illustrate that unexamined and unresolved contradictions between the historic and the present have created powerful competing versions of Indigenous law, legal authorities, and practices that reverberate through Indigenous communities. They have identified the contradictions and conflicts within Indigenous communities about relationships to land and non-human life forms, about responsibilities to one another, about environmental decisions, and about wealth distribution. <em>Creating Indigenous Property</em> contributes to identifying the way that Indigenous discourses, processes, and institutions can empower the use of Indigenous law.</p> <p>The book explores different questions generated by these dynamics, including: Where is the public/private divide in Indigenous and Canadian law, and why should it matter? How do land and property shape local economies? Whose voices are heard in debates over property and why are certain voices missing? How does gender matter to the conceptualization of property and the Indigenous legal imagination? What is the role and promise of Indigenous law in negotiating new relationships between Indigenous peoples and Canada? In grappling with these questions, readers will join the authors in exploring the conditions under which Canadian and Indigenous legal orders can productively co-exist.</p>

<p>[First paragraph]: "There is a move afoot in Canada towards the privatization of Indigenous lands.  This move is striking, given the centrality of lands to Indigenous laws and legal orders, as well as to overall economic and social flourishing. But what is privatization? While widely used across many discourses, what is meant by privatization varies. Privatization is often defined as “the transfer of an ongoing business or service from  government control and ownership to the private sector.” However, there is no bright line between what is public and what is private, especially when concerning Indigenous peoples and their lands. For our purposes and to set the stage for the chapters that follow, privatization is used here to capture the replacement of services on Indigenous lands and ownership of those lands by governments with individuals or organizations owned and controlled by individuals."</p>

<p>[First paragraph]: "There is a move afoot in Canada towards the privatization of Indigenous lands.  This move is striking, given the centrality of lands to Indigenous laws and legal orders, as well as to overall economic and social flourishing. But what is privatization? While widely used across many discourses, what is meant by privatization varies. Privatization is often defined as “the transfer of an ongoing business or service from  government control and ownership to the private sector.” However, there is no bright line between what is public and what is private, especially when concerning Indigenous peoples and their lands. For our purposes and to set the stage for the chapters that follow, privatization is used here to capture the replacement of services on Indigenous lands and ownership of those lands by governments with individuals or organizations owned and controlled by individuals."</p>

No abstract

Este artigo discute se o anonimato dos doadores de esperma deve permanecer no Canadá e quais efeitos existem pela abolição do anonimato, particularmente para grupos marginalizados como mães homossexuais. A primeira parte do artigo descreve o contexto legislativo e histórico em torno do debate sobre anonimato de doadores no Canadá. A segunda parte aborda os interesses dos diversos atores sociais e legais, incluindo os filhos concebidos pelos doadores, os pais socioafetivos e biológicos desses filhos e os doadores de esperma. Ao final discute a reforma dupla da lei. Primeiramente, propõe-se que o Canadá abole prospectivamente o anonimato dos doadores, em um esforço para as necessidades de saúde e psicológicas das crianças concebidas por doadores. Em segundo lugar, recomenda-se que as leis de parentalidade sejam simultaneamente alteradas para que sejam removidas as vulnerabilidades legais que as famílias lideradas por mulheres atualmente experienciam e que seriam exacerbadas pela desanonimização de doadores.