Journal of law and health最新文献

The case of R. (Quintavalle) v. Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority (and Secretary of State for Health) presents a handful of legal problems. The biggest legal query to arise from the case is the inevitable harvest of babies, toddlers and very young children for their bone marrow. This article unpacks the judicial story behind Quintavalle to reveal how the strict provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990--namely 'suitable condition' under schedule 2 paragraph 1(1)(a) and 'treatment services' and 'assisting' under section 2(1)--were widely misinterpreted to introduce the social selection of embryos into law. The legal loopholes created by the judgment (embryo wastage, welfare, eugenics and the legality of child harvest in particular) are also identified. It will be concluded that screening for a tissue match is social selection despite arguments to the contrary and that parents are not yet entitled in law to harvest a very young child for bone marrow, making the creation of a saviour sibling under the 1990 Act as a result of Quintavalle ultimately futile.

This note argues that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections (ODRC) should not obtain lethal injection drugs from unregulated compounding pharmacies. Ohio should only purchase drugs from an FDA-registered outsourcing facility. Part II explores the death sentence statute in Ohio and the use of compounding pharmacies. Part III compares Oklahoma's statute in conjunction with Ohio and illustrates the adverse effects by utilizing compounding pharmacies. Part IV proposes recommendations to Ohio's execution protocol. Part V provides a conclusion.

Because obesity and its associated health problems have been largely attributed to poor self-control, laziness, and various other personal failings, society has been unwilling to assign blame to food manufacturers for their role in contributing to this problem. But, as consumers are becoming more aware of the significantly harmful effect that poor diets can have on a person's heath, the scales may be tipping in favor of bringing "Big Food" to court. Food manufacturers, however, are not exactly vulnerable. Armed with precedent disputing the causal link between consumption of fast food and adverse health effects, judicially-created barriers to admitting epidemiologic evidence, and the defense of personal responsibility, food plaintiffs face an uphill battle. This Comment explores that reality.

Byrne argues that disparities among different courts' interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments have caused confusion for those in law and healthcare. Additional amendments to the FRCP are necessary to provide clarity, especially in the area of healthcare electronic discovery. Specifically, future amendments should include: 1. Enforcing the "Meet and Confer" process, especially as related to e-discovery and ESI 2. Clear specification about when the duty to preserve information begins 3. Delineating reasonable and consistent standards for production of information 4. Outlining the details for when sanctions for failing to retain ESI are appropriate.

This paper considers the regulatory reality of sports equipment that is at the center of this brain trauma in sports issue. It reveals that not all regulation concerning athletic head injuries occurs in the public sector. It goes on to explain that in the case of sports helmets, very little is performed by the government and explains how the private sector executes this regulation instead. Protective equipment (helmets, by and large) are regulated, or more precisely, "quasi-regulated" by a structure defined largely by private technical standards. This paper offers an introduction to these standards and explains the key elements and differences between the private regulatory models for helmets. It also evaluates the effectiveness of standards-based regulation of athletic headgear and concludes with recommendations for adjustments to the existing conformity assessment systems and undertakings by the helmet standards community that would serve the end of providing excellent private regulation for equipment that faces the serious challenge of reducing brain injury in sports.

In Part II, I present a legal challenge to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) from an administrative law perspective. While I share sympathies with those who believe PDUFA represents an unacceptable conflict of interest for the FDA, I posit arguments purely from the framework of permissible administrative agency discretion so as to avoid ambivalent analytical and empirical arguments. My argument is that given the statutory and case law determinations of permissible federal agency discretion, the FDA cannot assess a flat user fee for widely variable types of services it renders during the drug approval process. Thus, the current implementation of PDUFA is legally impermissible. Subsequently, in Part III, I compare PDUFA to three other agency user-fee mechanisms and propose specific improvements to PDFUA to minimize its conflict of interest while maintaining its revenue efficiency.

This article considers in Part II the status and influence of public health research regarding the safety risks of gladiator sports and the field's tendency to neglect the sports' recognized medical and mental health benefits. In Part III, the historical trends in judicial interpretation of the scope of the criminal consent defense and civil doctrines of a privilege of consent to assault and assumption of the risk in the sports context are addressed. Finally, Part IV asserts the need to reform the civil and criminal defenses to intentional misconduct in sports through agency, judicial, and statutory reform, for the purpose of eliminating the strategic use of the intentional foul to better enforce the new medically informed safety regulations and sports rules while protecting the tradition of a wide array of gladiator sports.

This article examines three facets of the pregnant prisoner prenatal and post-birth care issue. First, it examines the injustice that pregnant prisoners are subjected to. Next, it examines other states' statutory regimes to identify adequate and inadequate features. Specifically, it examines the Pennsylvania regime because of its relevance and reputation for being the most accommodating to these women. Finally, it proposes a statutory regime for Ohio that provides mandatory care standards, means of accomplishing mandatory care, penalties for both the institution and its individual actors when care is not provided--and shows how a statutory regime without these changes puts mothers and their unborn children at risk for poor treatment, even death, like Pamela.

Media coverage surrounding the New York City Department of Health's recent portion-cap on sugary beverages sold in food service establishments tends to focus on public opinions regarding the role of government. Within this dialogue, there are two camps. On one hand lies the opposition; these individuals criticize the Department of Health as a "nanny state" involving itself with individual consumption choices. On the other side lay the supporters who recognize the gravity of the obesity epidemic and applaud government efforts to ameliorate its effects.