Journal of law and health最新文献

Pope John Paul II penned, "So much of our world seems to be in fragments, in disjointed pieces." Experts admonish that an irreparable threshold of 1.5°C for global temperatures is not a theoretical remonstrance but an imminent imperative. Is this true? This article will explore if climate change exists. I will thoughtfully respond to this question in the affirmative, exploring center-based solutions. Specifically, this article will urge that these great United States require a new generation of leaders who can embody the energy of a Brother President Theodore Roosevelt, who possesses the eloquence of President John Kennedy, and who, like President Reagan, can maintain and show a bullish "love" of the country. The law is one of many tools and this new generation of leaders, who will use those tools, must better reflect the diversity of modern America. Specifically, I urge inclusion by lawyers with disabilities in leading center-based solutions to climate change.

The use of the locality rule to define or modify the medical standard of care is inconsistent with modern medicine. Nevertheless, various states in the U.S. continue to adhere to a locality rule. This paper revisits this topic, about which I have previously written, by focusing on Idaho, Nebraska, Tennessee and Arkansas. The paper concludes by suggesting that locality rules should be eliminated in favor of a national standard of care.

This Note critically examines the evolving legal landscape surrounding transgender individuals' access to gender-affirming care in the United States, focusing on two pivotal cases before the Fourth Circuit: Kadel v. Folwell (North Carolina) and Fain v. Crouch (West Virginia). These cases present a constitutional and statutory challenge to the exclusion of medically necessary gender-affirming care from state health plans, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note contextualizes these lawsuits within a broader historical trajectory of transgender rights, highlighting legal and cultural milestones that have shaped access to care and recognition. Drawing on precedent, including Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Bostock v. Clayton County, the analysis explores how gender identity is legally understood through the lens of sex discrimination. It further considers the persuasive value of medical consensus on the necessity of gender-affirming care, as endorsed by major health organizations. The paper identifies the legal inconsistencies and discriminatory rationales employed by states to deny this care and critiques the sociopolitical underpinnings of such exclusions. By comparing the different factual and legal circumstances of Kadel and Fain, the Note argues that the Fourth Circuit has an opportunity to affirm constitutional protections for transgender persons. It proposes a legally and politically viable middle ground: requiring states to provide coverage for non-surgical interventions such as medication and psychotherapy, thereby upholding basic standards of care while navigating judicial restraint. Ultimately, the Note underscores that the outcome of these joined en banc proceedings will significantly influence future litigation, legislative efforts, and the lived realities of transgender individuals. In doing so, it advocates for a legal framework rooted in equality, medical necessity, and the dignity of all persons under the law.

The Ohio State Legislature is among the growing nationwide trend in attacking LGBTQ+ rights. Chief among these is Ohio House Bill 8, which claims to limit the types of content children encounter in schools. While the drafters cite this noble intent, the bill's actual impact further harms queer students and teachers, who already bear heavier mental health burdens due to such legislation and its societal implications. This type of legislation recently originated in Florida, where it was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2022 and garnered national media attention. As Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed a near-identical bill in January 2025, the outcomes observed in Florida inform the constitutional analyses for the Ohio constituency. As in Florida, Ohio's bill is left intentionally vague, banning "gender ideology" and "sexual concepts" in classrooms or constraining them to what is deemed age-appropriate without providing sufficient guidelines for what may be acceptable. The disparate impact of this legislation is rooted entirely in gender classifications, triggering intermediate scrutiny. The bill's ambiguity creates a chilling effect on students' First Amendment rights by restricting the ability to express gender non-conformity without the school disclosing such changes to their families, disregarding the child's safety, and limiting the type of instruction children may receive in the classroom. Consequently, this compels schools to treat LGBTQ+ students and age-appropriate content differently from their heteronormative counterparts, inherently relegating those with queer identities as second-class citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process clauses.

Life, in all its diversity, has always been revered for its beauty, be it in the myriad opportunities it presents, the relationships we forge, or the cyclical changes that shape our journey. Yet, life's harsh winters, those prolonged periods of suffering, often push the boundaries of endurance, prompting the question: Should we insist on perseverance when the hope of relief seems distant? This paper aims to explore this very question in the context of assisted suicide. This paper delves into the intricate ethical landscape of assisted suicide, navigating the complex interplay between autonomy, dignity, and the sanctity of life. At the core of this discourse is the concept of "rest in the mourning," where those grappling with the burdens of illness have already mourned the life they once knew. Their consideration of assisted suicide is not a mere desire to escape but a profound acknowledgment of life's impermanence and a quest for dignity in death. Utilizing the New Haven approach, this paper frames the debate over whether the right to die should be considered a fundamental liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution from various perspectives, including medical ethics, religious views, and constitutional considerations. The New Haven approach, a framework that aims to shape laws that foster human flourishing, raises an important question: Can the right to die, rooted in the principles of autonomy and dignity, be safeguarded without eroding the societal bonds that unite us? Do the laws governing assisted suicide truly serve people and promote human flourishing? This approach is crucial in understanding the implications of laws guiding assisted suicide and their impact on human flourishing.

In recent decades, medical marijuana programs have become commonplace, and most states in the United States of America are ready to accept marijuana as a natural alternative to treat symptoms of certain conditions such as chronic pain, cancer, mental illness, multiple sclerosis (MS), HIV/AIDS, and substance use disorder; as such, medical marijuana is readily accessible to those who have a qualifying diagnosis--the exception being those who are incarcerated. Although disability, substance abuse, and mental illness are prevalent among those under state supervision, these individuals are effectively prohibited from enjoying the benefits of medical marijuana. This Note will provide a comprehensive history of marijuana legislation in the United States, including a legal framework regarding the constitutionality of state medical marijuana programs, and an argument in favor of allowing qualifying inmates to access medical marijuana. This Note will also address counterarguments and will outline a logistical approach to administering medical marijuana to qualifying inmates.

This paper examines the Supreme Court decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi and its profound impact on the patentability of biotechnology inventions, particularly biologic drugs. By virtually eliminating the possibility of claiming genera patents, the decision exacerbates existing challenges within the biologic sector, including high development costs and rigorous regulatory hurdles. The analysis sets forth the enablement requirement's precedent, emphasizing historical case law and the unforeseen implications of setting a stringent standard for biotechnology patents. This paper further critiques suggested industry compromises, deeming them insufficient to address the ramifications of Amgen, and proposes legislative intervention. Options include granting biologics a special exemption from Amgen's requirements or implementing temporary exclusivity periods analogous to the Orphan Drug Act--aimed at balancing public disclosure and innovation incentives. The article argues that without such measures, the research and development of new biologic drug classes may decline significantly, contrary to the Framers' intent of promoting progress through limited monopolies as established in the Constitution.

Attorney-client privilege was held by the Supreme Court to extend beyond death in 1996, albeit only ratifying centuries of accepted practice in the lower courts and England before them. But with the lawyer's client dead, the natural outcome of such a rule is that privilege--the legal enforcement of secrecy--will persist forever, for only the dead client could ever have waived and thus end it. Perpetuity is not traditionally favored by the law for good reason, and yet a long and broad line of precedent endorses its application to privilege. The recent emergence of a novel species of privilege for psychotherapy, however, affords an opportunity to take a fresh look at the long-tolerated enigma of eternity and the imprudence of thoughtlessly importing it to the newest addition to the family of privileges. Frankly, humanity has always deserved better than legalisms arrogating to the inscrutability of the infinite.

Concern about individual rights and the desire to protect them has been part of our nation since its founding, and continues to be so today. The Ninth Amendment was created to assuage the Framers' concerns that enumerating some rights in the Bill of Rights would leave unenumerated rights unrecognized and unprotected, affirming that those rights are not disparaged or denied by their lack of textual support. The Ninth Amendment has appeared infrequently in our jurisprudence, and Courts initially construed it rather narrowly. But starting in the 1960s, the Ninth Amendment emerged as a powerful tool not just for recognizing unanticipated rights, but for protecting or expanding even enumerated rights. The right to privacy--encompassing the right to contraception and abortion--the right to preserve the integrity of your family, the right to vote, the right to own a firearm as an individual--all these rights have been asserted under and found to be supported by the Ninth Amendment. In its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision overturning Roe, the Supreme Court found that there is no right to abortion because it is not in the Constitution. But the potential of the Ninth Amendment is such that reproductive choice need not be mentioned in the Constitution to be protected. Reproductive choice may rightfully be considered as part of a right to privacy, an unenumerated right that nevertheless has abundant precedent behind it. The Ninth Amendment, and its counterparts found in many state constitutions, has the power to protect not just reproductive choice, but all of our fundamental rights.

Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming lead the United States in a category coveted by no one: the suicide rate. Firearm ownership drives the rate to the disproportionate level it reaches year after year and the states are left with little recourse. This article argues the usefulness and constitutionality of narrowly tailored red-flag laws aimed exclusively at reducing the rate of suicide in these mountain states. The article follows Supreme Court jurisprudence leading up to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and offers an analysis that complies with the hyper textualist history and tradition test laid out by Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The analysis demonstrates that narrowly tailored red flag laws are a constitutional means of reducing the suicide rate in these at-risk states and references statutory and cultural avenues for the implementation of the legislation.