Concerns about the economic impact of an ageing population have triggered many developed countries to advance policies that attempt to extend working lives and discourage early retirement. There is considerable evidence of a relationship between poor health and early retirement, but some researchers have suggested that there is a ‘justification bias’ in claims that ill-health is the cause of retirement. This paper reports a longitudinal qualitative study that interviewed 60 New Zealanders aged between 55 and 70 years on two occasions, and analysed their explanations of health-related retirement decisions. Although the participants' explanations included poor health as an important reason for retirement, two additional health-related retirement pathways were identified: the ‘maximisation of life’, being decisions to retire whilst healthy to fulfil other life goals; and ‘health protection’, being decisions motivated by health protection and promotion. These health pathways interacted with other factors such as financial security. An elucidation of these motivations pays particular attention to the social and discursive context of explanations of retirement, and considers the three identified health-retirement pathways in relation to the sickness justification bias and current government policies to extend working lives.

No abstract

The poorer health of caregivers supports previous findings on the detrimental health effects of caregiving. Caregiving may have more detrimental effects on Māori health outcomes due to existing inequalities in health, barriers to formal support services, and the multiple roles of elder Māori.

No abstract

Violence against women within the context of intimate relationships is a complex social problem in Aotearoa/New Zealand and internationally. Such abuse by men is particularly problematic because of its prevalence, and because of the extent and magnitude of deleterious effects on the health and psychological well-being of women and children. In New Zealand, the legal system is assumed to play an important role in protecting women and children from domestic violence. Through the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the amended Guardianship Act 1968, persons who are physically, sexually or psychologically abusive to their children, or to their partner whilst children are present, may only be entitled to supervised access to these children. Although supervised access has been found to increase the safety of women and children, it remains a contentious issue. Because of the role that legal professionals have in the implementation of relevant legislation, the present research explored how lawyers make sense of supervised access in the context of domestic violence. Eighteen male and female lawyers were interviewed. Their interview transcripts were then subject to discourse analysis. This paper illustrates and discusses discourses used in relation to supervised access, including those that support protecting children from the harm of domestic violence through supervised access, and those that challenge the need for children's protection. Within the cluster of latter discourses, supervised access was not considered a means of balancing children's relationships with both parents with children's need for protection, or a way of enabling men to have a safe relationship with their children. Rather, it was constructed as violating men's rights to a relationship with their children, and children's right to a relationship with both parents. The prevalence of discourses opposing supervised access could affect the likelihood of women obtaining protection orders and supervised access conditions, and hence, women and children's safety. However, perpetuation of 'supportive' discourses could enhance women and children's well-being, and facilitate safe ongoing relationships between children and non-custodial parents.