Journal of law and health最新文献

Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) is a neurodegenerative brain injury that has become prevalent among high-contact professional sports, especially American football. More and more retired players are exhibiting symptoms of CTE and being diagnosed with CTE post-mortem. While the neuroscience community constantly releases studies showing a causal connection between brain trauma and CTE, the National Football League (NFL) continues to deny that any brain injury can arise from playing football. The NFL must implement provisions in their contracts to fully inform and protect players from this lethal brain injury. This article examines the repercussions of CTE, how players' contracts do and do not provide protections, and the possible provisions the NFL can implement in its contracts to adequately protect players of repeated brain trauma.

The following Article discusses the extent to which the constitutional right to informational privacy protects medical data from improper acquisition or dissemination by state agents. Part I provides background on Whalen v. Roe, the Supreme Court case that has been understood to establish the right to informational privacy. Part I also discusses the variations across the circuit courts as to what medical information is afforded protection by the right. Part II analyzes the well-established approaches adopted by the Second and Third Circuits as they present opposing interpretations of Whalen, one wholly protecting medical information and the other protecting scarcely any. Finally, Part III explains why the Supreme Court and courts that have yet to adopt a uniform approach should follow the Third Circuit and constitutionally protect all medical information from improper government acquisition or dissemination. Part III also argues for an amendment to the Privacy Act to provide individuals whose medical conditions are not afforded protection under the Constitution an alternative remedy.

Alfie Evans was a terminally ill British child whose parents, clinging to hope, were desperately trying to save his life. Hospital authorities disagreed and petitioned the court to enjoin the parents from removing him and taking him elsewhere for treatment. The court stepped in and compelled the hospital to discontinue life support and claimed that further treatment was not in the child's best interest. This note discusses the heartbreaking stories of Alfie and two other children whose parents' medical decisions on their behalf were overridden by the court. It argues that courts should never decide that death is in a child's best interest and compel parents to withdraw life support from their children. Such a decision is outside the scope of the judiciary. Furthermore, it argues that even in those instances when the court may or must intervene, a new framework is necessary because the current framework used by the court to determine the best interest of the child ignores fundamental realities of child psychology. Too often, as a result of the court's mistaken framework, the court illegitimately trespasses into the parental domain. By adopting a new framework, the court will intervene only when actual abuse or neglect is suspected. In all other cases, judicial restraint will be practiced and the court will show greater deference to the parents' wishes.

People are often looking for that quick fix when it comes to their health. With dietary supplements so readily available on the market, the public assume that they have been through rigorous testing. Dietary supplements are not tested as much as consumers believe. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not initiate the same type of testing and analysis for supplements as it does for food, drink and medication. Given that people are now choosing supplemental meal replacements and the like, as opposed to whole foods, regulations drastically need to be stepped up in an effort to emphasise public safety. An authoritative body needs to stop manufacturers from taking advantage of an already vulnerable marketplace. I suggest a new form of regulation that takes the pressure away from the FDA and into the hands of someone who wholly focuses on the supplement market. Dietary supplements have revolutionised the "health" world; however, the only way that the market can keep growing is through enacting more stringent rules and regulations--at the same time allowing consumers to maintain their autonomy and freedom when purchasing.

Insanity is a legal term of art that changes definitions depending on the legal standard in American jurisprudence, which explains why a man who mental health professionals described as having an uncontrollable obsession with killing people can be found not insane and guilty. This Note addresses the current state of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and its widespread implementation at the state level. Part II supplies background information on the history of the insanity defense and how it has transformed over the years in American jurisprudence. Part III provides an analysis of the of the insanity defense. Part IV suggests a new standard of for the insanity defense with a more accommodating application to a wider degree of mental diseases.

An ethical advancement of scientific knowledge demands a delicate equilibrium between benefits and harms, in particular in health-related research. When applying and advancing scientific knowledge or technologies, Article 4 of UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, ethically justifiable research requires maximizing direct and indirect benefits and minimizing possible harms. The National Institution of Health [NIH] Data Sharing Policy and Implementation Guidance similarly states that data necessary for drawing valid conclusions and advancing medical research should be made as widely and freely available as possible (in order to share the benefits) while safeguarding the privacy of participants from potentially harmful disclosure of sensitive information. This paper discusses the challenges in the maximization of research benefit and the minimization of potential harms in the unique context of health-related research in Big Data from multiple sources, which are differently protected by the law. Part I frames the ethical dilemma by discussing potential benefits and harms, showing the constant misalignment in health-related research in Big Data from multiple sources, between the benefits in the use of confidential information for scientific purposes and the value in keeping confidentiality. Part II addresses existing regulations, including their nature and legal coverage. It highlights the prevailing challenges when combining data from multiple sources that are differently protected by the law. Part III compares different requirements for consent or authorization to use persons' health information for research. It focuses on the difficulty of existing regulation to ensure those requirements when using multiple sources of data. Part IV investigates whether exemptions from the authorization requirement could prevail in the context of information that exceeds the protection of HIPAA and the Protection of Human Subjects Regulations. In Part V the paper proposes a solution of a statistical nature, using the method of synthetic data to balance conflicting considerations. Part VI shows how the use of synthetic data can overcome some of the ethical challenges.

This Note analyzes the flaws in the NCAA's current accidental injury health coverage policies for student-athletes and suggests ways to remedy the issues that plague student-athletes incurring serious injuries that may not be covered under current policies. Part I of this Note outlines the history of the NCAA and the policies relevant to the issues with accidental injury coverage currently in place. Part II looks at the significance of these coverage gaps in today's world of modern medicine and technology as well as the impact they have on the everyday life of college athletes. Part III suggests solutions to bridge the gaps in accidental injury coverage for the physical and financial futures of these student-athletes.

This article evaluates two proposals that the Organs Directive along with the commission's Action Plan 2009-2015 can be viewed as a form of hybrid governance. The Organs Directive is the first legally-binding supranational risk regulation devised in the field of organ donation and transplantation. The Directive is modelled on the earlier Directive dealing with blood, tissue, and cells. The Action Plan, which is soft law, will complement the Directive. The Directive and Action Plan requires additional administration procedures from the Member States with the EU Commission regularly monitoring the implementation of the work programme to ensure it is manageable for them. Before probing the Directive, the Impact Assessment (IA) undertaken by the EU Commission on organ donations, which is used to determine the rationale behind the adoption of the stringent Directive with the Action Plan, will be examined. The social, economic, and health impacts of the four regulatory options available to the Commission will be considered. The Directive and the Action Plan, which are finally adopted, will be discussed in detail, before the arguments are placed highlighting the fact that the Directive and Action Plan display a mode of hybrid governance. Next, the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid governance are laid out and conclusions are drawn as to whether the hybrid model was the best form of action in EU healthcare. In the conclusion, the article proposes the emergence of an "integrated model" within the Organs Directive, which is based on the fusion of the three governance structures: the OMC, comitology, and agencies.

This Note begins with a discussion of both the national opioid problem as well as the specific epidemic in Ohio as an example of how it has grown within all of the states. Part II discusses the differences between prescription opioids and opiates, how they can be obtained, what effects they have on the human body, and why the government has an interest in this growing problem. Next, this Note explains how and why there was an increase in access and addiction to prescription opioid pain medication. Following this explanation, the steps the government has taken to try to rectify the issue are explained. Part II then explores more details about the problem of heroin use--explaining what the drug is, what an overdose looks like, and how fentanyl-laced heroin is contributing to the problem. Similar to the pain medication description, there is a discussion on steps the government has taken thus far to combat the opiate issue. Finally, Part II introduces a United States Supreme Court case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. In Part III, there is an in-depth analysis of why the state government solutions for dealing with the opioid epidemic have not worked thus far. This Note argues that, because even the strides that states like Ohio have taken have not solved the problem, Congress should mandate that all rehabilitation facilities accept health insurance and that all health insurance companies cover the cost of rehabilitation for opiate and opioid addiction. Analysis of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Taxing Clause show that Congress has the authority to make such demands.

Through our work in youth advocacy as, respectively, legal and public health professionals, we are all too aware of the high levels of health care fragmentation experienced during pregnancy and postpartum by poor, young mothers of color. Meredith Matone's research highlights the heightened risk of fragmentation for girls with histories of child welfare involvement. For example, she found that 66.7% of young mothers who had resided in out-of-home placements and who had taken antipsychotic medication prior to becoming pregnant failed to fill prescriptions for antipsychotics in their first postpartum year. Put another way, two-thirds of these vulnerable young mothers--a far higher proportion than young mothers without histories of child welfare involvement--were not getting the treatment that they needed to care for themselves and their children. The very real consequences of this phenomenon can be seen in the experiences of Jesse Krohn's clients, several of whom have their stories told here. Treatment discontinuity, particularly during the transition to parenthood, places mothers at risk for poor health outcomes and maladaptive parenting approaches; threatens the health and safety of infants; and triggers child welfare involvement. This article explores the negative consequences and root causes of treatment discontinuity, as well as particularized population vulnerabilities for treatment discontinuity including, as noted, involvement with child welfare. It will also provide public health and child welfare policy solutions for reducing treatment discontinuity and improving mental and physical health outcomes for new mothers and infants. The population of mothers at highest risk for postpartum treatment gaps is not small: more than 40% of Medicaid-financed births to young women aged 15 to 24 occurred in mothers who had a childhood relationship to the child welfare system. It is unacceptable to be aware of the pervasiveness of this problem, particularly among intersectionally vulnerable women, and not deploy a targeted and evidence-based preventative and remedial response.