Fordham Law Review最新文献

Because so many Americans receive health insurance through their employers, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 plays a dominant role in the delivery of health care in the United States. The ERISA system enables employers and insurers to save money by providing inadequate health care to employees, thereby creating incentives for these agents to act contrary to the interests of their principals. Such agency costs play a significant role in the current health care crisis and require attention when considering reform. We evaluate the two major health care reform movements by exploring the extent to which each reduces agency costs. We find that agency cost analysis clarifies the benefits, limits, and uncertainties of each approach.

This Note examines disability-related discrimination in light of the protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and in the context of an HIV- or AIDS-infected employee. Under the ADA, an employer may legally fire a worker who poses a direct threat to the individuals around him or her. It is unclear, however, whether the burden of proving or disproving the claim that an individual is a direct threat lies with the employer or the employee. This Note analyzes the circuit split over which party bears the burden of proof under the direct threat standard in light of prospective HIV-related litigation.

This Note examines the legality of physicians treating patients near the end of life with risky pain medication, specifically during an extreme emergency situation. The issues discussed include whether such treatment should be criminalized and, if criminalized, what standard should be used to determine culpability. This Note proposes that physicians should not be shielded from the criminal justice system, but that the standard of double effect intent should be expressly adopted in the adjudication of such cases.

In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has created two categorical exemptions to the death penalty. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court exempted mentally retarded offenders. Three years later, in Roper v. Simmons, the Court extended the protection to juveniles. Based on these cases, the practices of foreign countries, and the opinions of professional organizations with relevant expertise, legal scholars speculate that the Court may, in the future, categorically exclude severely mentally ill offenders from the death penalty. This Note examines the feasibility of such an exemption for the mentally ill and considers its possible repercussions.

On February 20, 2006, Michael Morales was hours away from execution in California when two anesthesiologists declined to participate in his lethal injection procedure, thereby halting all state executions. The events brought to the surface the long-running schism between law and medicine, raising the question of whether any beneficial connection between the professions ever existed in the execution context. History shows it seldom did. Decades of botched executions prove it. This Article examines how states ended up with such constitutionally vulnerable lethal injection procedures, suggesting that physician participation in executions, though looked upon with disdain, is more prevalent--and perhaps more necessary--than many would like to believe. The Article also reports the results of this author's unique nationwide study of lethal injection protocols and medical participation. The study demonstrates that states have continued to produce grossly inadequate protocols that severely restrict sufficient understanding of how executions are performed and heighten the likelihood of unconstitutionality. The analysis emphasizes in particular the utter lack of medical or scientific testing of lethal injection despite the early and continuous involvement of doctors but ongoing detachment of medical societies. Lastly, the Article discusses the legal developments that led up to the current rush of lethal injection lawsuits as well as the strong and rapid reverberations that followed, particularly with respect to medical involvement. This Article concludes with two recommendations. First, much like what occurred in this country when the first state switched to electrocution, there should be a nationwide study of proper lethal injection protocols. An independent commission consisting of a diverse group of qualified individuals, including medical personnel, should conduct a thorough assessment of lethal injection, especially the extent of physician participation. Second, this Article recommends that states take their execution procedures out of hiding. Such visibility would increase public scrutiny, thereby enhancing the likelihood of constitutional executions. By clarifying the standards used for determining what is constitutional in Baze v. Rees, the U.S. Supreme Court can then provide the kind of Eighth Amendment guidance states need to conduct humane lethal injections.