Law Commons^™

Mediation At The End Of Life: Getting Beyond The Limits Of The Talking Cure, Thaddeus Mason Pope, Ellen A. Waldman

Faculty Scholarship

Mediation has been touted as the magic band-aid to solve end-of-life conflicts. When families and health care providers clash at the end of life, bioethicists and conflict theorists alike have seized upon mediation as the perfect procedural balm. Dissonant values, tragic choices, and roiling grief and loss would be confronted, managed, and soothed during the emotional alchemy of the mediation process. But what is happening in a significant subset of end-of-life disputes is not mediation as we traditionally understand it. Mediation's allure stems from its promise to excavate underlying needs and interests, identify common ground, and push disputants toward more …

A Moratorium On Intersex Surgeries?: Law, Science, Identity, And Bioethics At The Crossroads, Laura Hermer

Faculty Scholarship

Should the law prevent all parents and guardians from requesting and consenting to cosmetic genital surgeries on children with certain intersex conditions before the children are mature enough to decide the matter for themselves? While such surgeries ought not to be encouraged, banning the surgeries altogether, as some advocate, would hobble, if not eliminate, the burgeoning scientific investigation of the best treatment practices for different intersex conditions. It would also remove a surgical option that, according to data in a number of studies, has resulted in subjectively satisfactory outcomes for many patients.

Medical Futility Statutes: No Safe Harbor To Unilaterally Refuse Life-Sustaining Treatment, Thaddeus Mason Pope

Faculty Scholarship

Over the past fifteen years, a majority of states have enacted medical futility statutes that permit a health care provider to refuse a patient's request for life-sustaining medical treatment. These statutes typically permit the provider to unilaterally stop LSMT where it would not provide significant benefit or would be contrary to generally accepted health care standards. But these safe harbors are vague and imprecise. Consequently, providers have been reluctant to utilize these medical futility statutes.

This uncertainty probably cannot be reduced. Consensus on substantive measures of medical inappropriateness has proven unachievable. Only a purely process-based approach like that outlined in …

Rethinking Medical Liability: A Challenge To Defense Lawyers, Trial Lawyers, Medical Providers, And Legislators: An Introduction To The Symposium, Thaddeus Pope

Faculty Scholarship

The 2007 University of Memphis Law Review Symposium, Rethinking Medical Liability: A Challenge for Defense Lawyers, Trial Lawyers, Medical Providers, and Legislators, was held on February 16, 2007, at the University of Memphis FedEx Institute of Technology in Memphis, Tennessee. The Symposium brought together scholars and practitioners to assess the traditional malpractice system and quality of care. Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about how to improve and rethink medical liability and improve the quality of medical care. The Symposium presentations and the resulting articles in this issue not only advance the ongoing debate but also offer …