Law Commons^™

A Better Death In Britain?, Barbara A. Noah

Faculty Scholarship

In the United States, patients and physicians often avoid discussing the inevitability of death and planning for it. As a result, opportunities are missed to make choices that comport with patients’ values and preferences. In the absence of such decisions, the default model is to “err on the side of life,” which often results in overtreatment or inappropriate prolongation of life and avoidable suffering. This Article discusses the United States' end-of-life training and care and Britain’s Liverpool Care Pathway as related to end-of-life care availability, quality, and cost. It further sets forth the argument that while the United States' medical …

The United States, In Comparative Counter-Terrorism, Sudha Setty

Faculty Scholarship

The United States, like all other democratic nations that have suffered terrorist attacks, continues to struggle with questions of how to keep its population safe while maintaining the principles of democracy and the rule of law. This Book Chapter discusses the United States' counterterrorism policies, particularly since the September 11 terrorist attacks, and the resulting changes in societal viewpoints, political agendas, and the legal authority to combat terrorism and threats of terrorism.

The government’s aggressive counterterrorism stance has influenced actions and policies outside the United States. The Author’s exploration of counterterrorism policies in the United States include: criminal law and …

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari, Kosilek V. O'Brien, Jennifer Levi, Joseph L. Sulman, Abigail K. Hemani, Michele E. Connolly, James P. Devendorf, Jamie A. Santos, Christine Dieter

Faculty Scholarship

Jennifer Levi, on behalf of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, was one of the Authors of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of the Petitioner, Michelle Kosilek, in Kosilek v. O'Brien. Questions presented to the Court by the Petitioner were 1.) whether appellate courts must parse “ques­tions that present elements both factual and legal” into their factual and legal components, so that all factual findings can be reviewed for clear error, or whether, as the First Circuit ruled, they may review such questions as a whole along …