Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Intentional Wrongful Conviction Of Children, Victor Streib
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Intentional wrongful convictions in cases involving child offenders may occur when judges have insufficient evidence proving any crime by the child but feel a strong need for the courts to intervene in the child's life and behavior. They believe that the negative factors attached to such a status are worth suffering if the child gains entry into a desired state program. This is wrongfully convicting the child "for the child's own good." Juvenile court judges too often receive knowledge of the child's background and previous record prior to any trial or hearing in order to devise the best result for …
A Look Back And A Look Forward: Legislative And Regulatory Highlights For 2008 And 2009 And A Discussion Of Juvenile Transfer, Andrew K. Block
A Look Back And A Look Forward: Legislative And Regulatory Highlights For 2008 And 2009 And A Discussion Of Juvenile Transfer, Andrew K. Block
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Special Education Law, William H. Hurd, Stephen C. Piepgrass
Special Education Law, William H. Hurd, Stephen C. Piepgrass
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
Parents Should Not Be Legally Liable For Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children, Jay Gordon
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
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 …
Challenging Monohumanism: An Argument For Changing The Way We Think About Intercountry Adoption, Shani King
Challenging Monohumanism: An Argument For Changing The Way We Think About Intercountry Adoption, Shani King
Michigan Journal of International Law
In Part I, this Article provides a brief history of ICA. In Part II, using a post-colonialist theoretical framework, the work of legal scholars from the past twenty years on the subject of ICA is explored. This analysis exposes the centrality of MonoHumanism to our discourse on ICA. In Part III, this Article illustrates how our discourse regarding intercountry adoption contributes to our violating the rights of children (and families) as they are defined in the CRC. Lastly, in Part IV, this Article explores how this argument fits into the current and somewhat polarized debate on ICA and how the …
Gambling With The Health Of Others, Stephen P. Teret, Jon S. Vernick
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
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
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
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.