Justice, Labor, Research, and Power: The Significance and Implications of Parent-Reported Outcomes in Medical-Legal Partnership.

IF 1.6 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-31 DOI:10.1017/jme.2024.59
James Bhandary-Alexander
{"title":"Justice, Labor, Research, and Power: The Significance and Implications of Parent-Reported Outcomes in Medical-Legal Partnership.","authors":"James Bhandary-Alexander","doi":"10.1017/jme.2024.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As a legal aid union president in New Haven, laboring within shouting distance of a different large research university, I recall how our membership rolled our eyes when Professors Greiner, Pattanayak, and Hennesy of Harvard published their study providing evidence, through a randomized control trial, that law clinic housing work made no difference for clients.<sup>1</sup> Representing, as I was, \"lawyers, secretaries, and paralegals who have dedicated their careers to serving poor clients in crisis,\"<sup>2</sup> the authors' conclusion generated first shock, then denial, and then an anxious realization that somebody's job was to research and disseminate such conclusions. In a 2013 United States where there was one legal aid lawyer for every 8,893 people who qualified,<sup>3</sup> where federal Legal Services Corporation funding had dropped 40% over ten years in real dollars,<sup>4</sup> and in an America that spends as much on Halloween costumes for its pets as it does legal aid for the poor,<sup>5</sup> the inquiry felt like a pile-on. It made no more sense to us than asking if a teacher is \"good for students,\" a nurse \"good for the sick,\" or a chef \"good for the hungry.\"<sup>6</sup>.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":"52 1","pages":"148-150"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2024.59","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As a legal aid union president in New Haven, laboring within shouting distance of a different large research university, I recall how our membership rolled our eyes when Professors Greiner, Pattanayak, and Hennesy of Harvard published their study providing evidence, through a randomized control trial, that law clinic housing work made no difference for clients.1 Representing, as I was, "lawyers, secretaries, and paralegals who have dedicated their careers to serving poor clients in crisis,"2 the authors' conclusion generated first shock, then denial, and then an anxious realization that somebody's job was to research and disseminate such conclusions. In a 2013 United States where there was one legal aid lawyer for every 8,893 people who qualified,3 where federal Legal Services Corporation funding had dropped 40% over ten years in real dollars,4 and in an America that spends as much on Halloween costumes for its pets as it does legal aid for the poor,5 the inquiry felt like a pile-on. It made no more sense to us than asking if a teacher is "good for students," a nurse "good for the sick," or a chef "good for the hungry."6.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正义、劳动、研究和权力:家长报告的结果在医疗-法律合作中的意义和影响。
作为纽黑文(New Haven)的一名法律援助工会主席,我的工作地点与另一所大型研究型大学近在咫尺,我记得当哈佛大学的格雷纳、帕塔纳亚克和亨尼斯教授发表他们的研究报告,通过随机对照试验证明法律诊所的住房工作对客户没有任何影响时,我们的成员是如何翻白眼的。我代表的是 "律师、秘书和律师助理,他们的职业生涯致力于为处于危机中的贫困客户提供服务",2 作者的结论先是让人震惊,然后是否认,最后是焦虑地意识到,有人的工作就是研究和传播这样的结论。在 2013 年的美国,每 8893 名符合条件的人中才有一名法律援助律师,3 联邦法律服务公司的实际拨款在十年间下降了 40%,4 美国花在宠物万圣节服装上的钱和花在穷人法律援助上的钱一样多,5 这份调查报告给人的感觉就像是堆砌出来的。对我们来说,这与询问教师是否 "对学生好"、护士是否 "对病人好"、厨师是否 "对饥饿的人好 "6 一样毫无意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the Pro-Life Movement in a Post-Roe Era - ERRATUM. INTRODUCTION: Medical-Legal Partnerships: Equity, Evolution, and Evaluation - CORRIGENDUM. "A Most Equitable Drug": How the Clinical Studies of Convalescent Plasma as a Treatment for SARS-CoV-2 Might Usefully Inform Post-Pandemic Public Sector Approaches to Drug Development. A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19. A Public Option for Clinical Trials? Lessons from Convalescent Plasma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1