20 research outputs found

    Introduction

    Get PDF

    Judging Genes: Implications of the Second Generation of Genetic Tests InThe Courtroom

    Get PDF
    The use of DNA tests for identification has revolutionized court proceedings in criminal and paternity cases. Now, requests by litigants to admit or compel a second generation of genetic tests – tests to confirm or predict genetic diseases and conditions – threaten to affect judicial decision-making in many more contexts. Unlike DNA tests for identification, these second generation tests may provide highly personal health and behavioral information about individuals and their relatives and will pose new challenges for trial court judges. This article reports on an original empirical study of how judges analyze these requests and uses the study results to inform the construction of a multi-factorial decision matrix to assist judges evaluate the appropriate role of this information in legal proceedings. Through this analytical framework, the article illuminates doctrinal and theoretical tensions in existing criminal, evidence, constitutional and tort law that are likely to surface when efforts are made to apply current law in these areas to cases involving the use of health-related genetic tests. In addition, the article examines the broader implications of the wide scale use of these tests in court proceedings and argues that appellate judges and policymakers, who establish procedural rules governing litigation, will need to consider the collateral consequences of such wide scale use. Changes in some existing doctrines and/or rules may be necessary to accommodate challenges to underlying legal theories presented by these genetic tests and to preserve values such as privacy and family relationships threatened by the use of these tests in the courtroom

    Whose Duty is it Anyway?: the Kennedy Krieger Opinion and its Implications for Public Health Research

    Get PDF
    In this article, the authors discuss the Maryland Court of Appeals decision in the case of Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. and its implications for the tort duty owed by researchers, in particular public health researchers, to their subjects. The Opinion resulted from two lawsuits alleging lead poisoning of children enrolled in a study conducted by the Kennedy Krieger Institute, a world renown pediatric research and treatment facility. The opinion shocked the research establishment with its scathing characterization of researchers and its apparent holding that in Maryland a parent cannot consent to the participation of a child in nontherapeutic research or other studies in which there is any risk of injury or damage to the health of the subject. While this was the focus of much of the research community, the issue in dispute in the case was that of the scope of duty of the researchers. Hoffmann and Rothenberg describe the facts leading to the case, many of which were omitted from the Court of Appeals decision which resulted from an appeal to a motion for summary judgment, and then discuss two possible interpretations of the Court\u27s decision as it relates to the duty of researchers. One interpretation is based on a broad view of what constitutes the research endeavor and its associated risks and would arguably not result in a change in the legal duties of researchers. The other is based on a narrow view of the research project and would lead to the disclosure of risks not traditionally required by law as they fall outside of risks resulting from participation in the research protocol. The authors assert that as a result of confusion in the Opinion regarding the definition of the research study, the Court\u27s decision may result in a significantly broader duty than has been posed historically in the research setting. In addition to exploring the contrasting interpretations of the Court\u27s Opinion, the authors deconstruct the scope of the duty as articulated by the Court and pose a series of questions as to how such a duty might be discharged and how realistic the Court\u27s apparent expectations are regarding the duty or researchers. Finally, they discuss the implications of the Court\u27s apparent broad based duty requirement in the context of public health studies and raise the question whether the Opinion may ultimately have negative consequences for the future of public health research in Maryland and for the compensation of injured research subjects

    Tributes to Professor Roger Wolf

    Get PDF

    Probiotics: Finding the Right Regulatory Balance

    Get PDF
    Some products marketed as drugs should be excused from Phase I trials, but safety and efficacy claims for dietary supplements should be more tightly regulated

    Blacks in American medicine : a bibliography of secondary sources, 1970-1987 : 340 citations /

    No full text
    Contains 340 references to serials monographic literature published between 1970-1987. Source was HISTLINE. Alphabetical arrangement by primary authors. Entries give bibliographical information. General index.Includes index."15 May 1988."Contains 340 references to serials monographic literature published between 1970-1987. Source was HISTLINE. Alphabetical arrangement by primary authors. Entries give bibliographical information. General index.Mode of access: Internet

    Introduction

    No full text
    corecore