Epilepsy and the Law

  • Roy G. Beran
Reference work entry

Short Description

To the uninitiated, the question of epilepsy and the law is a simple question framed within a single legal system which, for most English-speaking nations, implies the common-law traditions, based on British legal practice. There are a variety of legal systems, not all of which are based on the adversarial system practiced within the common law. The majority of Europe and many other parts of the world, such as China or Indonesia, have adopted the civil law system, which is based more upon the inquisitorial approach with codified legal practice. There are also religiously based legal systems, as exist within Sharia law, as practiced in Islam, Halacha, as it pertains to Judaism and Papal Edicts as are relevant to Roman Catholicism. In addition to these religiously based legal codes, there are also traditionally based and defined codes of conduct that are relevant to indigenous communities, such as the Australian Kouri (aboriginal) people. In a brief dissertation such as...


Legal System Protected Health Information Legal Practice Recreational Pursuit Genetic Testing Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (1980) May and Department of Transport. AATA 59, 24 September 1980, AAT Decision No 410. [cited July 2009]. Available from: URL:
  2. Beran RG, Devereux JA (2007) Road not taken: lessons to be learned from Queen v. Gillett. Int Med J 37(5):336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beran RG, Gerber P, Devereux JA (2009) Usefulness of ausroads fitness to drive guidelines – lesson from Gillet case. Med Aust 190(9):503–505Google Scholar
  4. Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) Medical Standards (1989) 1st Impression September 1989, p 4Google Scholar
  5. Disability Discrimination Act (1992) Act No. 135. [online]. Compiled 2009 [cited Jul 2009]. Available from: URL:
  6. Fiss G (2004) Jared Jibben, Plaintiff vs. United Parcel Service, Defendant. Case No. CV-02–0039-KJD [online] Epilepsy Foundation [cited Jul 2009]. Available from: URL:
  7. Fountain NB, Mayc AC (2003) Epilepsy and athletics. Clin Sports Med 22(3):305–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gostin LO (2002) Tarasoff v cal. Public Health Law and Ethics: a Reader, 1st edn. University of California Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  9. Government of South Australia (2009) Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. [online] Applying for a boat license, 2009 [cited July 2009]. Available from: URL:
  10. Hodgson D (2000) Guilty mind or guilty brain? Criminal responsibility in the age of neuroscience. Aus Law J 74:661–680Google Scholar
  11. Privacy Legislation Amendment Bill (2006) The parliament of the commonwealth of Australia: House of Representatives. Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General, the Honourable Philip Ruddock MP. [online] 2006 [cited July 2009]. Available from: URL:
  12. Victorian Law Reform Commission (2004) Defenses to homicide [online] 2004. [cited Jul 2009]. Available from: URL:

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy G. Beran
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of MedicineGriffith UniversityState of QueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.South Western Sydney Clinical School, The University of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Strategic Health Evaluators  

Personalised recommendations