Medical Jurisprudence Commons^™

An Information Prescription For Prescription Drug Regulation, Anita Bernstein, Joseph Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Why Doctors Shouldn't Practice Law: The American Medical Association's Misdiagnosis Of Physician Non-Compete Clauses, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dirty Business: Legal Prophylaxis For Nosocomial Infections, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Beyond Bidil: The Expanding Embrace Of Race In Biomedical Research And Product Development, Jonathan Kahn

Faculty Scholarship

In 2005 the FDA approved BiDil, the first drug ever to include a race-specific indication on its label - to treat heart failure in a “black” patient. In the aftermath of this controversial approval and subsequent marketing of the drug, many have wondered whether BiDil was an anomaly or a harbinger of things to come. This article moves beyond BiDil to explore how similar yet distinct models are developing for the continuing exploitation of race in biomedical practice and product development. It will explore the tensions embedded in the persistent use of racial categories even as specific genetic variations linked …

Multi-Institutional Healthcare Ethics Committees: The Procedurally Fair Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanism, Thaddeus Mason Pope

Faculty Scholarship

2.6 million Americans die each year. A majority of these deaths occur in a healthcare institution as the result of a deliberate decision to stop life sustaining medical treatment. Unfortunately, these end-of-life decisions are marked with significant conflict between patients' family members and healthcare providers. Healthcare ethics committees (HECs) have been the dispute resolution forum for many of these conflicts.

HECs generally have been considered to play a mere advisory, facilitative role. But, in fact, HECs often serve a decision making role. Both in law and practice HECs increasingly have been given significant authority and responsibility to make treatment decisions. …

Kidneys, Cash, And Kashrut: A Legal, Economic, And Religious Analysis Of Selling Kidneys, Robert E. Steinbuch

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Making Sense Of Drug Regulation: A Theory Of Law For Drug Control Policy , Kimani Paul-Emile

Faculty Scholarship

This article advances a new theory of drug regulation that addresses two previously unexamined questions: how law-makers are able to regulate drugs differently irrespective of the dangers the drugs may pose and independent of their health effects, and the process followed to achieve this phenomenon. For example, although tobacco products are the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S. they can be bought and sold legally by adults, while marijuana, a substantially safer drug, is subject to the highest level of drug control. This article posits a conceptual model for making sense of this dissonance and applies this model …

Juries And Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts Versus Myths, Neil Vidmar

Faculty Scholarship

Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled …

Federalization Snowballs: The Need For National Action In Medical Malpractice Reform, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

Because tort law generally and healthcare regulation specifically are traditional state functions and because medical, legal, and insurance practices are highly localized, legal scholars have long believed that medical malpractice falls within the states' exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty. Indeed, this view is so widely held that modern legal scholarship takes it for granted. Articles on general federalism issues use medical malpractice as an easy example of a policy in which federal intervention lacks functional justification, and articles that focus on federalization of other tort reforms use medical malpractice as an easy foil, pointing out that the uniformity interest that justifies …