What Can Be Done About A Disruptive Physician? A Legal Analysis

House, a medical drama about an infectious disease specialist, entertained television audiences for years as the irascible and pill-popping physician solved medical mysteries with the zeal of a modern-day Sherlock Holmes while playing mind games with his coworkers. Uncanny intuition and eccentric thinking earned the physician great respect but his bullish behavior and antisocial tendencies were a distraction at the hospital. Not only did Dr. House clash with his fellow physicians but he also insulted patients, flouted hospital rules and caused great conflict with the hospital administrators. In fact, his actions often crossed the line into obnoxiousness and rage causing the hospital staff to tiptoe around his dysfunctional behavior. In the real world, Dr. House would be labeled a “disruptive physician” and would be subjected to disciplinary action including the loss of his hospital privileges. This article will explore the problems caused by being labeled a disruptive physician in a legal context with a focus on the peer review process and the relevant court cases

Handling Cases of Willful Exposure Through HIV Partner Counseling and Referral Services

Cases of willful exposure reveal the existing and future risks to the public health (especially women) which may be presented by individuals who willfully expose others to HIV through unsafe sexual or needle-sharing behaviors. In response to a documented case of willful exposure, a PCRS counselor or other public health official may, in his or her professional judgment, decide to act to avert a legitimate public health threat to known or unknown persons in the community. Yet handling such cases raises difficult issues in law, ethics, and public health practice. Public health authorities may be unable or ill-equipped to successfully control risks of this type for several reasons: (1) they may lack sufficient resources to properly investigate these cases; (2) they may lack knowledge or jurisdiction over the individual who willfully exposes others to HIV once his behaviors extend into other communities; and (3) they are bound to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information they obtain from PCRS. How do health care workers and public health departments balance the duty to maintain the privacy of public health information related to PCRS against their obligation to fulfill a partner\u27s right to know of their exposure to infection? What are the legal powers and duties of public health departments to protect the health and safety of individuals as part of their mission to protect the public health? What is the role of the criminal law concerning persons who may intentionally or knowingly attempt to infect others with HIV or other communicable diseases

Personal Privacy and Common Goods: A Framework for Balancing Under the National Health Information Privacy Rule

In this Article, we discuss how these principles for balancing apply in a number of important contexts where individually identifiable health data are shared. In Part I, we analyze the modern view favoring autonomy and privacy. In the last several decades, individual autonomy has been used as a justification for preventing sharing of information irrespective of the good to be achieved. Although respect for privacy can sometimes be important for achieving public purposes (e.g., fostering the physician/patient relationship), it can also impair the achievement of goals that are necessary for any healthy and prosperous society. A framework for balancing that strictly favors privacy can lead to reduced efficiencies in clinical care, research, and public health. We reason that society would be better served, and individuals would be only marginally less protected, if privacy rules permitted exchange of data for important public benefits. In Part II, we explain the national health information privacy regulations: (1) what do they cover?; (2) to whom do they apply?; and (3) how do they safeguard personal privacy? Parts III and IV focus on whether the standards adhere, or fail to adhere, to the privacy principles discussed in Part I. In Part III, we examine two autonomy rules established in the national privacy regulations: informed consent (for uses or disclosures of identifiable health data for health-care related purposes) and written authorization (for uses or disclosures of health data for non-health care related purposes). We observe that the informed consent rule is neither informed nor consensual. The rule is likely to thwart the effective management of health organizations without benefiting the individual. Requiring written authorization, on the other hand, protects individual privacy to prevent disclosures to entities that do not perform health-related functions, such as employers and life insurers. In Part IV, we examine various contexts in which data can be shared for public purposes under the national privacy rule: public health, research, law enforcement, familial notification, and commercial marketing. We apply our framework for balancing in each context and observe the relative strengths and weaknesses of the privacy regulations in achieving a fair balance of private and public interests

Zika Virus and Global Health Security

Americans are largely apathetic about the risks of Zika virus and Congress cannot agree on preparedness funding. Strategies to counter the spread of Zika by the World Health Organisation (WHO) grossly underestimate the disease’s impact. WHO and member countries lack sufficient resources to respond. Consequences of fiscal apathy can be measured in lives lost and long-term disabilities. Zika prevention is a matter of global health security. The epidemiologic brunt of Zika in South America falls largely on vulnerable women at heightened risk of exposure through mosquitoes and sexual transmission. Resulting transmission to fetuses and infants will have generational impacts in South American and Caribbean countries, as well as the U.S. Global costs to address Zika infections among infected infants will exceed hundreds of billions (U.S. dollars). WHO and some U.S. leaders, including President Obama, correctly assert that Zika threatens national and global security similar to humanitarian crises, climate change, and war. Words alone, however, are not enough. Global recognition of this public health crisis must stimulate greater investment in preventing negative repercussions

Is the United States Prepared for a Major Zika Virus Outbreak?

Zika virus has emerged as a global public health crisis with active transmission in the Americas and Caribbean. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), and recently WHO reported there is a scientific consensus that Zika is a cause of microcephaly and Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). In the U.S. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) activated its emergency operations center at its highest capacity. President Obama requested $1.86 billion in emergency funding. Shamefully, Congress has yet to appropriate the funding needed for Zika preparedness, and the President has had to reallocate Ebola funding for Zika prevention. Although none of the continental states has reported local mosquito-borne transmission, federal authorities are amplifying the potential for Zika to affect national security. The virus already severely threatens Puerto Rico. Travelers visiting or returning to the United States could likely escalate the spread of Zika via sexual transmission. The virus may spread across a majority of US states including large cities where Aedes species mosquitos are active. Is the U.S. prepared for Zika? America\u27s highly functioning health system will help, but signs of unpreparedness remain due to insufficient resources and variable legal authorities

Theoretical study of the ballistics and heat transfer in spinning solid propellant rocket motors

Computerized prediction analyses of radial spin acceleration effects on solid propellant rocket motor ballistics and heat transfe

Video: NSU Law Health Care Policy Discussion

Florida regularly has been ground zero for election news during the 21st century. During elections in Florida, both individual and public health issues resonate strongly, because of the state’s demographics and history. Health care policy is certain to be a key issue in the upcoming election season.To educate voters about a slate of core, national health law and public health law election issues, NSU Law will host national expert James G. Hodge, Jr., the Peter Kiewit Foundation Professor of Law at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University

Is the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Alternative Dispute Resolution a Viable Option or Wishful Thinking?

This article delves into the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and the legal profession, particularly in the context of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The introduction sets the stage by highlighting AI\u27s transformative potential in reshaping legal practice through automation, efficiency, and data-driven insights. While acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding AI\u27s long-term impact on the legal landscape, it emphasizes the need for investigation and adaptation as the technology evolves. Key considerations, such as AI technology\u27s limitations, regulatory challenges, and ethical implications, are also addressed. Despite the promises of efficiency and accessibility, questions remain about AI\u27s ability to replicate human reasoning and navigate complex legal nuances. Moreover, legal and ethical concerns, such as privacy, confidentiality, and liability, underscore the need for careful evaluation and oversight in AI-driven dispute resolution