At a national level, Grant Duchy ofFinland(1883) was first to declare universal suffrage and allow anyone to participate in politic, women included, although it was a autonymous part of Russian Empire at that stage. The first independent country to give women the right to vote in national elections (not local or provincial) was New Zealand in 1893. Previous bills or amendments only narrowly failed in New Zealands parliament as early as 1878.

Places with similar status which granted women the vote include Wyoming Territory (1869). Other possible contenders for first "country" to grant female suffrage include the Corsican Republic(1769), the Isle of Man (1881), the Pitcairn Islands(1838), Franceville(1889), but some of these had brief existences as independent states and others were not clearly independent. Sweden was first one to allow women to participate in elections in 1718,but only to guild members and only on local elections.
Of currently existing independent countries, New Zealand was the first to give women the right to vote in 1893 when it was a self-governing British colony. Similarly, the colony of South Australia enacted legislation giving women the vote in 1894. Places with similar status which granted women the vote include Wyoming Territory (1869). Other possible contenders for first "country" to grant female suffrage include the Corsican Republic, the Isle of Man (1881), the Pitcairn Islands, and Franceville, but some of these had brief existences as independent states and others were not clearly independent.

Both doctors and lawyers have confidentiality agreements with their clients and patients.

Doctors and lawyers can be sued for malpractice if they divulge the secrets they are told.

The confidentiality rule does have exceptions however.

Doctors and lawyers must keep the secrets they are told. For example, a doctor cannot tell anybody if one of their patients has AIDS. He can, however, tell the police if the AIDS patient threatens to have unprotected sex with others in order to intentionally spread the disease.

The same goes for lawyers. A lawyer cannot tell anybody that his client has committed murder. If the client admits that he is planning to murder another person, however, the lawyer is required to tell the authorities to prevent further crimes.

Added: You may add to the above -- clergymen (particularly of the Roman Catholic faith) who are also protected from being forced to reveal confidentialities they received via "confession."

Reporters, and other members of "The News Media" like to believe that they are protected from revealing confidentialities, however there has never been a successful constitutional challenge won on this premise.

Also: if you are bound by an agreement that you signed with another party (perhaps an employer) it would be best to consult an attorney on the matter.

Societies have sanctioned murder (pursuant to a death penalty) when committed by a government. Although justification for such killings is commonly advanced by claiming a retributive purpose (this reasoning goes back to biblical times), it is a form of profound denial to claim they are completely free of "malice aforethought". Attempts to legitimize such killings through social consensus do not negate their moral status as murder. There is no question that such killings are "deliberate and premeditated." The universally experienced discomfort connected with killing another human being has yet to be fully owned up to in the few jurisdictions where the death penalty is legal.

Killings associated with war are similarly excused as something other than murder. At its core, the distinction is conceptual and illusory.

Remember, murder and killing are distinctly different legal concepts.

Killing is causing the death of another person.

Murder is a legal definition of certain types of killing. By definition, an illegal killing is murder, and thus, murder is always illegal.

Virtually all known societies have situations where killing is perfectly legal: such situations can depend on a great deal of variables, from the "who did" the killing, do "who was" killed, to the actions of either at the time of the killing, to other conditions in force at the time of the killing. All of these circumstances must be collected together to determine if a killing is murder or not. If the killing is deemed illegal, then it becomes murder.

Thus, murder is never legal anywhere.

Pennsylvania - Pa. C.S.A. 18.908. Prohibited offensive

weapons. (a) Offense defined.--A person commits a

misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized

by law, he makes, repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in,

uses, or possesses any offensive weapon. (b) Exception.--

It is a defense under this section for the defendant to

prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed of

dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic

performance, or that he possessed it briefly in

consequence of having found it or taken it from an

aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any

intent or likelihood that the would be used unlawfully.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section "offensive

weapon" means... any... dagger, knife, razor or cutting

instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic

way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or

otherwise...

- also see 24 P.S. 13-1317.2. re: students bringing weapons

on to school property.]

Pennsylvania case law:

Where opening knife required lock to be released, and

once lock was released blade could be exposed by flip of

wrist, knife did not have blade which could be "exposed in

an automatic way"... by "otherwise" legislature referred

to knives that were opened by some sort of mechanism which

is not a "switch," "push-button," or "spring" mechanism

but still a mechanism... (1979)