Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
When Should Preventive Treatment Be Paid For By Health Insurance?, George J. Annas
When Should Preventive Treatment Be Paid For By Health Insurance?, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
In the national debate about who should have health insurance, surprisingly little attention has been focused on what medical services health insurance itself should cover. Historically, discussions of this topic have centered on concepts such as basic health care or medically necessary care. When the power of medical diagnosis and treatment was limited, these terms had boundaries as well. As physicians' diagnostic prowess has increased, however, especially in the area of genetics, such terms have become open-ended. To avoid predictable conflicts over benefit coverage, much more precise definitions will be required, so that patients and health care providers can understand …
Informed Consent, Cancer, And Truth In Prognosis, George J. Annas
Informed Consent, Cancer, And Truth In Prognosis, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
Barbara Tuchman records that during the Black Death epidemic in the early 14th century, “doctors were admired, lawyers universally hated and mistrusted”. The great plagues and wars of the Middle Ages produced a “cult of death,” including a vast popular literature that had death as its theme. As the 20th century closes, our emphasis is on the denial of death, and the honest discussion of death remains rare both in popular literature and in conversations between physicians and patients. This is one reason why Shana Alexander shocked a national conference of bioethicists last year by saying, “I trust my lawyer …
Scientific Evidence In The Courtroom: The Death Of The Frye Rule, George J. Annas
Scientific Evidence In The Courtroom: The Death Of The Frye Rule, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
In one of the most anticlimactic cases in recent years, the Supreme Court ruled on the last day of its 1992-1993 term that federal judges should admit all relevant scientific testimony and evidence that is “reliable”. The result was so uncontroversial that both sides in the case said they were satisfied; because the result was also so vague, it will probably be years before its effect can be accurately ascertained. The facts of the case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are somewhat more interesting than its prosaic legal conclusion.