Health Law and Policy Commons^™

The Dangers Of Psychotropic Medication For Mentally Ill Children: Where Is The Child’S Voice In Consenting To Medication? An Empirical Study, Donald H. Stone

All Faculty Scholarship

When a child with a mental illness is being prescribed psychotropic medication. who decides whether the child should take the medication — the parent or the child? What if the child is sixteen years of age? What if the child is in foster care: Should the parent or social service agency decide? Prior to administering psychotropic medication, what specific information should be provided to the person authorized to consent on behalf of the child? Should children be permitted to refuse psychotropic medications? If so, at what age should a child he able to refuse such medication What procedures should be …

Parents Should Not Be Legally Liable For Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children, Jay Gordon

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Should a parent who takes advantage of a personal belief exemption to avoid vaccinating a child be held liable if that child infects other people? No, because there are valid medical reasons for choosing this exemption and tracing direct transmission of these illnesses from an unvaccinated child to another person is virtually impossible.

The Problem Of Vaccination Noncompliance: Public Health Goals And The Limitations Of Tort Law, Daniel B. Rubin, Sophie Kasimow

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Imposing tort liability on parents who fail to vaccinate their children would not serve the public health and public policy interests that drive childhood immunization efforts. The public policy goals of vaccination are to slow the spread of disease and to reduce mortality and morbidity. Our country’s public health laws already play a substantial role in furthering these goals. Although application of tort law may be an appropriate response to some of the problems that result from vaccination noncompliance, there also is a need to cultivate public understanding of the connection between individual actions and collective wellbeing. It is doubtful …

Gambling With The Health Of Others, Stephen P. Teret, Jon S. Vernick

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals. When one individual’s behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct. This is true in the context of childhood immunization.

Unintended Consequences: The Primacy Of Public Trust In Vaccination, Jason L. Schwartz

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

The increasing availability of personal belief exemptions from state vaccination requirements is a growing concern among proponents of vaccination. Holding parents of non-vaccinated children liable to those they infect is among the responses proposed to maintain high vaccination rates. Even if motivated by a sincere desire to maximize the benefits of vaccination throughout society, such a step would be inadvisable, further entrenching opponents of vaccination and adding to the atmosphere of confusion and unnecessary alarm that has become increasingly common among parents of children for whom vaccination is recommended.

Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exemptions: Considering Legal Responses, Alexandra Stewart

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Public health agencies and citizens should employ legal approaches to hold parents accountable for refusing to vaccinate their children. The judiciary would craft an effective response to defeat the threat posed by these parents. Public-nuisance law may offer a legal mechanism to hold vaccine objectors liable for their actions.

Choices Should Have Consequences: Failure To Vaccinate, Harm To Others, And Civil Liability, Douglas S. Diekema

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

A parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. Should an individual harmed by an infection transmitted from a child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination have a negligence claim against those parents? While I do not hold a legal degree and therefore cannot speak directly to issues of law, as a physician and ethicist it seems to me that the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination.

Minors As Medical Decision Makers: The Pretextual Reasoning Of The Court In The Abortion Cases, J. Shoshanna Ehrlich

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

By examining the Court's failure to consider the allocation of authority between parents and children in the critical realm of medical decision making, this article exposes the irrationality of the Court's acceptance of limitations on the abortion rights of minors and reveals the pronatalist thrust of the parental involvement decisions. The article begins by looking at how the Roe Court characterized abortion as a medical decision, followed by a discussion about the medical decision-making rights of minors. Rooted in this medical paradigm, the article then turns to the parental involvement cases to examine the Court's failure to consider the medical …

An Emerging Ethical And Medical Dilemma: Should Physicians Perform Sex Assignment Surgery On Infants With Ambiguous Genitalia?, Hazel Glenn Beh, Milton Diamond

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

This article discusses the development of a surgical approach to treating intersex infants and others with genital anomalies that began in the late 1950s and 1960s and became standard in the 1970s. Although professional literature has recently questioned the surgical approach to the treatment of infants, controversy surrounding treatment persists and the medical community now is divided. How sex reassignment surgery for intersex infants became a routine recommendation of practitioners and how parents were persuaded to consent to such radical surgeries provide a cautionary tale that is relevant to both medicine and law.

Government As God: An Update On Federal Intervention In The Treatment Of Critically Ill Newborns, Dionne L. Koller

All Faculty Scholarship

Whether a severely impaired or critically ill infant should receive lifesaving, and sometimes extraordinary, medical treatment, or be allowed to die, is hotly debated. The issue initially garnered public attention in 1982, when an infant who was born with Down's Syndrome, “Baby Doe,” was allowed to die from a correctable birth defect. Following this, the federal government took a lead role in determining the fate of critically ill newborns. In the meantime, doctors, philosophers, and others have debated whether federal interference in this area is appropriate.

This essay will bring the reader up to date on the “Baby Doe” issue …

Beyond State Intervention In The Family: For Baby Jane Doe, Martha Minow

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Newspapers and broadcasters gave major billing to the story. Headlines announced: "The Life or Death Question of Baby Doe;" and "Baby Doe's Parents Call U.S. Action Intimidating." The medical care decisions about this infant born with spina bifida, microcephaly, and other severe disabilities, not only attracted mass media attention, but also led to both state and federal court proceedings. Legislative hearings raised the issue of her care. Many commentators debated what should happen to this infant of Long Island parents. This article instead will ask: what was all the attention about?; why are cases like this so riveting?; and might …

Public Policy Over Metaphysics: Wrongful Birth And Wrongful Life In Harbeson V. Parke-Davis, Inc., Eric B. Schmidt

Seattle University Law Review

The recognition of the wrongful birth and wrongful life causes of action by the Washington State Supreme Court is supported by both policy rationales and legal theories. Wrongful birth and wrongful life causes of action receive support from traditional tort principles and, more important, further public policy by deterring negligent genetic counseling and negligent preconception medical treatment. This Note describes the legal history of these claims and analyzes several issues not addressed by the Washington court. In addition, this Note criticizes a more recent decision by the court, which limits wrongful conception causes of action, because that decision conflicts with …

Wrongful Death Of The Fetus: Viability Is Not A Viable Distinction, Sheryl Anne Symonds

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment reviews the history of tort law treatment of the fetus who is wrongfully injured or killed. The Comment discusses case history and wrongful death statutes, with a focus on Washington law. Finally, the Comment concludes that courts should ignore viability when deciding cases of fetal wrongful death.