Journal of law and health最新文献

Effective July 1, 1972, California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the U.S. named after its authors, State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman and State Senators Nicholas C. Petris and Alan Short, the LPS Act sought to "end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorder"; to "provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with mental health disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism"; and to "guarantee and protect public safety." Despite citing to these articles of intent, the LPS Act violates its own legislative intent through its inclusion of "gravely disabled" in its enforcement of involuntary psychiatric hold designations (also known as "5150 designations"). First, police officers are not required to make a medical diagnosis of a mental health disorder at the time of a 5150 designation; the broad scope of "gravely disabled" increases the number of persons police officers can involuntarily transport, increasing the likelihood of inappropriate and involuntary commitment of persons with mental health disorders. Second, the broad scope of "gravely disabled" produces an onslaught of 5150-designated persons (whether improperly designated or not) being sent to LPS-designated hospitals with limited resources (e.g., lack of beds and psychiatric staff); this results in patients waiting for an inordinate amount of time for a psychiatric evaluation and/or a hospital bed. Third, it is unclear whether the LPS Act sought to provide protection for the mentally ill or to provide protection from the mentally ill in its guarantee of protecting "public safety"; the inclusion of "gravely disabled" in 5150 designations indicates that the LPS Act provided the public with a duplicitous means of removing the mentally ill, impoverished, and houseless from the streets under the guise of "public safety." This Paper suggests the following to help remedy the effects of implementing the broadly defined "gravely disabled" in 5150 designations: (1) Remove "gravely disabled" from the 5150 criteria; (2) integrate the community with mental health advocacy efforts by creating outreach and education programs; and (3) implement a client-centric approach to interacting with persons with mental health disorders through restorative policing and the establishment of a restorative court.

The momentous public outcry for police reform is the result of police encounters ending fatally, which is notably sixteen times more likely for individuals suffering from mental illness in the United States. These horrific incidents highlight the systemic failings of traditional police departments training and its failure to provide officers with the necessary skills to de-escalate crisis situations involving the vastly overrepresented mentally ill population involved in the United States justice system. This article demonstrates that effective police training involving crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques equip police officers with knowledge and skills that enable them to contrive more positive outcomes for all involved. With a particular focus on Ohio, this article highlights the significant discrepancy between ideal police training and current Ohio requirements, which glaringly fail to require continual police officer training. The article ultimately proposes that the Ohio legislature pass a bill that both requires police officers to complete increased training programs in de-escalation and crisis intervention while providing departments with the necessary funding to make implementation possible. By implementing the proffered recommendations, the State of Ohio has the opportunity to contrive more positive police encounters with mentally ill individuals and the wider community.

Perhaps the best way to understand early-Twenty-First Century state and federal cannabis law in the United States is to examine the relevant history. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s statement is apropos: "[A] page of history is worth a volume of logic." This article begins by discussing the early history of cannabis and its uses. Next, the article examines the first state and federal marijuana laws. After a brief comparison of alcohol prohibition to cannabis prohibition, this article addresses cannabis laws from the 1920s to the early 1950s. Then, the article takes up the reorganization of the federal drug regulatory bureaucracy since its inception. Addressing the current era of cannabis laws and regulations, this article recounts how marijuana became a Schedule I drug. The discussion then turns to changing social attitudes towards cannabis as reflected in presidential politics and popular culture. Starting with the late-1990s, this article describes the development of state and federal cannabis laws and policies up to the present day.

On July 24, 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed an act that included an amendment requiring Northern Ireland to implement recommendations from the Committee on the Elimination on Discrimination Against Women. The amendment required Northern Ireland to repeal the 1861 abortion act and requires the decriminalization of abortion. The law went into effect on October 22, 2019, since the Northern Ireland power-sharing government (Stormont) did not reconvene before October 21, 2019. Since the law did go into effect, it gave women the right to obtain abortions under the CEDAW recommendations; however, when the Northern Irish government (Stormont) reconvenes, it can recriminalize abortion. They made this attempt when Stormont under DUP leadership reconvened briefly on January 11, 2020 before the official Brexit the next day. This Note argues that abortion should be legal in Northern Ireland regardless of whether the new legislation from British Parliament ever went into effect or gets overturned by the Stormont legislature because of several treaties and domestic decisions from the Supreme Court in Belfast and the new regulations made in accordance with the amendment need to meet the standards of the CEDAW recommendations.

In 2019, the United States saw the single largest outbreak of measles in recent history. The measles crisis has prompted state legislative bodies to face a seemingly impossible dilemma: eliminate both religious and philosophical exemptions to mandatory school vaccination statutes or sit by idly and allow measles to continue to run its course. As of June 2019, five states have neither religious nor philosophical exemptions to their mandatory vaccination statutes. This Note argues that states should remove all religious and philosophical exemptions to compulsory vaccination statutes. The 2019 measles outbreak demonstrates that the anti-vaccination movement poses a legitimate risk to the health of the masses, especially to the most vulnerable members of our communities. If individuals continue to opt out of compulsory vaccination requirements, diseases that were eradicated decades ago will undoubtably return to the absolute detriment of those unable to protect themselves.

In light of the confusion invited by applying the label "de-identified" to information that can be used to identify patients, it is paramount that regulators, compliance professionals, patient advocates and the general public understand the significant differences between the standards applied by HIPAA and those applied by permissive "de-identification guidelines." This Article discusses those differences in detail. The discussion proceeds in four Parts. Part II (HIPAA's Heartbeat: Why HIPAA Protects Identifiable Patient Information) examines Congress's motivations for defining individually identifiable health information broadly, which included to stop the harms patients endured prior to 1996 arising from the commercial sale of their medical records. Part III (Taking the "I" Out of Identifiable Information: HIPAA's Requirements for De-Identified Health Information) discusses HIPAA's requirements for de-identification that were never intended to create a loophole for identifiable patient information to escape HIPAA's protections. Part IV (Anatomy of a Hack: Methods for Labeling Identifiable information "De-Identified") examines the goals, methods, and results of permissive "de-identification guidelines" and compares them to HIPAA's requirements. Part V (Protecting Un-Protected Health Information) evaluates the suitability of permissive "de-identification guidelines," concluding that the vulnerabilities inherent in their current articulation render them ineffective as a data protection standard. It also discusses ways in which compliance professionals, regulators, and advocates can foster accountability and transparency in the utilization of health information that can be used to identify patients.

The United States has failed its citizens who suffer from severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Homelessness is one of the most obvious manifestations of this failure. The combination of a lack of effective treatment, inadequate entitlement programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and subpar housing options form systemic barriers that prevent people suffering from mental illness from being able to obtain adequate housing. Cultural beliefs within the United States regarding who is homeless and what homelessness means also play a significant role in the development of positively impactful social welfare programs. Part II of this Note reviews the history of treatment for persons with SPMI--specifically how that treatment has evolved, the history of federal policies regarding SSI, SSDI and housing, and societal beliefs regarding homelessness and mental illness that have impacted policymaking decisions. Part III looks at these same areas from a current perspective and addresses the current issues and some possible solutions. Part IV discusses how lack of effective treatment, poor disability programs, and the need for better housing options work together to form systemic barriers for people with SPMI. Part IV also address how the cultural beliefs in the United States regarding people who have SPMI and are homeless serve as an independent barrier to policy change. Ultimately, this Note argues that homelessness is a product of system failures rather than individual factors.

The United States government, until recently, did not require the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On July 29, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS). This law directs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create regulations that require manufacturers to disclose certain bioengineered products on food labels. On December 20, 2018, the USDA released the final regulations for the NBFDS, which requires food manufactures, importers, and certain retailers to ensure bioengineered foods are appropriately disclosed. The final regulations include provisions that will leave the majority of GMO derived foods unlabeled. The final regulations also restrict approximately 100 million Americans from accessing GMO information by allowing QR codes to replace clear and transparent labeling, an issue that will be discussed in further detail later in this Note. This Note explores why you, as a consumer, may want to know whether your food contains GM products, and furthermore, why you as a consumer have a moral and legal right to know.

This Note examines the NCAA's unwillingness to enforce the requirement that all NCAA institutions must implement a concussion management plan; the NCAA's refusal to apply its appropriate enforcement mechanism when member institutions violate their concussion management plans, which are instituted in order to protect student-athletes from concussions; how both of these failures result in more concussions and a higher probability of debilitating long-term effects; and solutions to remedy this grave injustice. Part II describes what a concussion is, the long-term effects of concussions, the NCAA's management of concussions, and lawsuits challenging the NCAA in relation to concussions. Part III analyzes the inefficiencies of the NCAA in its management of concussions, the previous and current lawsuits' failure to stimulate change within the NCAA, and the proposed solutions that will help create a safe environment for student-athletes.

On May 31, 2017, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine took a step in fighting Ohio's opioid epidemic, bringing the first of many lawsuits against five top pharmaceutical companies. However, under Federal and State law, there is an exception called the Learned Intermediary Doctrine, which can absolve drug manufacturers of liability from any misconduct that might be found and transfer that liability to a treating physician. This exception is the way many drug manufacturers were able to avoid being held responsible in the past. This Note proposes that with the current pending lawsuit in the State of Ohio, an exception to the Learned Intermediary Doctrine should be introduced. This Note begins with a discussion of opioids and how these drugs have become such an aggressive problem in a very short amount of time in Ohio. Part II talks about the role the government can play and the drug manufacturers have played and continue to play in the availability of opioids. It discusses the effect these pharmaceutical companies have had on this problem and in increasing this problem. Part II also discusses why this is a problem and why this problem matters. Further, it talks about the steps that have already been taken by the Ohio Legislature to combat the opioid problems. Finally, it delves into a discussion of what this current lawsuit means for fighting and decreasing the opioid problem and how it will directly affect the heroin epidemic in Ohio.