The phrase "a serious harm" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the impact or consequences of an action or situation that causes significant damage or injury.
Example: "The new policy could lead to a serious harm to the environment if not carefully monitored."
Alternatives: "a significant injury" or "a grave damage".
Those who pose a "serious harm" to the public – about 3,000 cases – are automatically exempt from the SAR restriction.
Objectification, therefore, constitutes a serious harm to a person's humanity.
It essentially permits an action that causes a serious harm as a side effect of promoting some good end (McIntyre 2009).
In an earlier work, Kekes specifies that a serious harm is one that "interferes with the functioning of a person as a full-fledged agent".
The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end.
The principle of double effect is directed at well-intentioned agents who ask whether they may cause a serious harm in order to bring about a good end of overriding moral importance when it is impossible to bring about the good end without the harm.
However, collectively the parents whose choices did in fact make it occur would have contributed to a risk of a very serious harm, and it is difficult to see why collective actions should be immune to the kind of state intervention that might be justified in relation to individual actions which risk serious harm.
And a new "serious harm" test should end trivial prosecutions.
But the legislation before parliament goes further than the coroner's report, in that the law would also apply to those convicted of causing a child serious harm.
The Defamation Act 2013 introduces a new "serious harm threshold" designed to help people understand when claims should be brought and discourage the wasting of court time.
But Judge Sweeney properly refused to hide documents that contained information about a scandal involving serious harm and a powerful institution.
