My body and other objects : the internal limits of self‐ownership

Common practices such as donating blood or selling hair assume rights of disposal over oneself that are similar to, if not indistinguishable from, property rights. However, a simple view of self‐ownership fails to capture relevant moral differences between parts of a person and other objects. In light of this, we require some account of the continuity in the form of ownership rights a person has over herself and other objects, which also acknowledges the normative differences between constitutive parts of a person, on the one hand, and external objects, on the other. This paper provides such an account by arguing that there are reasons internal to a general justification of property rights to limit the extent of powers included in ownership of different kinds of object, depending on how the person is situated in relation to them. Rejecting a typical Hohfeldian view of property as a univocal, gradable concept allows us to make space for a new approach to property and self‐ownership: one which can make sense of various uses of the body as property without entailing that our relation to those parts is exhaustively characterised by an ordinary property right

Facts, Principles, and (Real) Politics

Should our factual understanding of the world influence our normative theorising about it? G.A. Cohen has argued that our ultimate normative principles should not be constrained by facts. Many others have defended or are committed to various versions or subsets of that claim. In this paper I dispute those positions by arguing that, in order to resist the conclusion that ultimate normative principles rest on facts about possibility or conceivability, one has to embrace an unsatisfactory account of how principles generate normative political judgments. So political theorists have to choose between principles ostensibly unbiased by our current understanding of human motivation and political reality, or principles capable of reliably generating political judgments. I conclude with wider methodological observations in defence of the latter option, and so of a return to political philosophy’s traditional blend of normative and descriptive elements

The Law of Society: Governance Through Contract

This paper focuses on contract law as a central field in contemporary regulatory practice. In recent years, governance by contract has emerged as the central concept in the context of domestic privatization, domestic and transnational commercial relations and law-and-development projects. Meanwhile, as a result of the neo-formalist attack on contract law, governance of contract through contract adjudication, consumer protection law and judicial intervention into private law relations has come under severe pressure. Building on early historical critique of the formalist foundations of an allegedly private law of the market, the paper assesses the current justifications for contractual governance and posits that only an expanded legal realist perspective can adequately explain the complex nature of contractual agreements in contemporary practice. The paper argues for an understanding of contracts as complex societal arrangements that visibilize and negotiate conflicting rationalities and interests. Institutionally, contractual governance has been unfolding in a complex, historically grown and ideologically continually contested regulatory field. Governance through contract, then, denotes a wide field of conflicting concepts, ideas and symbols, that are themselves deeply entrenched in theories of society, market and the state. From this perspective, we are well advised to study contracts in their socio-economic, historical and cultural context. A careful reading of scholars such as Henry Sumner Maine, Morris Cohen, Robert Hale, Karl Llewellyn, Stewart Macaulay and Ian Macneil offers a deeper understanding of the institutional and normative dimensions of contractual governance. Their analysis is particularly helpful in assessing currently ongoing shifts away from a welfare state based regulation (governance) of contractual relations. Such shifts are occurring on two levels. First, they take place against the backdrop of a neo-liberal critique of government interference into allegedly private relations. Secondly, the increasingly influential return to formalism in contract law, which privileges a functionalist, purportedly technical and autonomous design and execution of contractual agreements over the view of regulated contracts, is linked to a particular concept of sovereignty. The ensuing revival of freedom of contract occurs in remarkable neglect of the experiences of welfare state adjudication of private law adjudication and a continuing contestation of the political in private relationships. The paper takes up the Legal Realists\u27 search for the \u27basis of contract\u27, but seeks to redirect the focus from the traditional perspective on state vs. market to a disembedded understanding of contractual governance as delineating multipolar and multirational regulatory regimes. Where Globalization has led to a fragmentation, disembeddedness and transnationalization of contexts and, thus, has been challenging traditional understanding of embeddedness, the task should no longer be to try applying a largely nation-state oriented Legal Realist perspective and critique to the sphere of contemporary contractual governance, but - rather - to translate its aims into a more reflexive set of instruments of legal critique. Even if Globalization has led to a dramatic denationalization of many regulatory fields and functions, it is still not clear, whether and how Globalization replaces, complements or aggravates transformations of societal governance, with and through contract

Validity of the vasoactive-inotropic score in preterm neonates receiving cardioactive therapies.

Vasoactive-Inotropic Score (VIS) is a weighted sum of various vasopressors and inotropes; its utility among preterm neonates is understudied. To investigate the association between maximum VIS (VIS <sup>max</sup> ) during the first 12, 24 and 48 h of treatment among preterm neonates who received vasopressors/inotropes, and the composite outcome of death/severe neuroinjury (sNI). Retrospective cohort study, over 6-years, including neonates <35 weeks gestational age (GA). Infants who met the primary composite outcome of death or sNI (defined as new intraventricular hemorrhage ≥grade 3 or periventricular leukomalacia) were compared to those who survived without sNI. Maximum VIS was categorized as <10, 10-19 or ≥ 20 for comparison. 192 infants (mean GA and birth weight 26.8 ± 3.3 weeks and 952 ± 528 g, respectively) were included. The most common primary diagnosis was sepsis/necrotizing enterocolitis (69 %). Median VIS for the entire cohort was 10. Death/sNI was associated with lower GA at birth and treatment, as well as higher frequency of VIS <sup>max</sup> of 10-19 or ≥20, compared to <10, during each time period (all p < 0.01). Multivariable regression revealed GA at treatment and VIS <sup>max</sup> ≥ 20 [not 10-19, referenced to <10] were associated death/sNI; adjusted odds ratio (95 % CI) for VIS <sup>max</sup> ≥ 20 within 12, 24, and 48 h were 4.2 (1.6-11.0), 4.9 (1.9-12.3), and 6.7 (2.7-16.7), respectively. Vasoactive-Inotropic Score may be a valid measure to quantify cardiovascular support in preterm infants needing hemodynamic support. Maximum VIS ≥20 within 48 h of treatment initiation may identify patients at high risk of adverse outcomes