Explore the vast range of titles available.

abstract Computer code that transfers data to third parties (third-party tracking) is common across the web and is subject to few federal privacy regulations. We determined the presence of potentially privacy-compromising data transfers to third parties on a census of US nonfederal acute care hospital websites, and we used descriptive statistics and regression analyses to determine the hospital characteristics associated with a greater number of third-party data transfers. We found that third-party tracking is present on 98.6 percent of hospital websites, including transfers to large technology companies, social media companies, advertising firms, and data brokers. Hospitals in health systems, hospitals with a medical school affiliation, and hospitals serving more urban patient populations all exposed visitors to higher levels of tracking in adjusted analyses. By including third-party tracking code on their websites, hospitals are facilitating the profiling of their patients by third parties. These practices can lead to dignitary harms, which occur when third parties gain access to sensitive health information that a person would not wish to share. These practices may also lead to increased health-related advertising that targets patients, as well as to legal liability for hospitals.

World over, the instances where polluters are made to pay for the damages they have caused to the environment are on the rise. If more than one party is found responsible for pollution, our analyses of statutes of different countries, covering more than 57% of the world population and more than 45% of its land area, showed that liability is to be allocated among the involved parties on an equitable basis, often decided by the courts. Analyses of a number of court cases showed that the factors considered for allocation in such cases may be classified into two, technical and non-technical. It was also found that the legal liability of pollution was different from the technical liability in many cases due to the influence of non-technical factors that were very specific to the case. These non-technical factors often do not fall under the investigation purview of an environmental forensic expert who carries out technical investigations to find the responsible parties. Based on the analysis, it is suggested that the liability allocation be a two-stage process; the first stage being technical liability allocation done by the forensic expert and the second stage the final (legal) allocation by the court. It is also suggested that clear guidelines be prepared for technical liability allocation. There was also a felt need to quantify remediability to make the remediation liability allocation easier.

Artificial intelligence (AI) holds considerable promise for transforming clinical diagnostics. While much has been written both about public attitudes toward the use of AI tools in medicine and about uncertainty regarding legal liability that may be delaying its adoption, the interface of these two issues has so far drawn less attention. However, understanding this interface is essential to determining how jury behaviour is likely to influence adoption of AI by physicians. One distinctive concern identified in this paper is a ‘negative outcome penalty paradox’ (NOPP) in which physicians risk being penalised by juries in cases with negative outcomes, whether they overrule AI determinations or accept them. The paper notes three reasons why AI in medicine is uniquely susceptible to the NOPP and urges serious further consideration of this complex dilemma.

Introduction Despite persistently low employment rates among working-age adults with disabilities, prior research on employer practices and attitudes toward workers with disabilities paints a generally rosy picture of successfully accommodated workers in a welcoming environment. Findings from previous studies might have been biased because of either employer self-selection or social desirability, yielding non-representative or artificially positive conclusions. Methods In this study, a novel approach was used to survey human resource professionals and supervisors working for employers known or reputed to be resistant to complying with the ADA’s employment provisions. Attendees of employer-requested ADA training sessions were asked to assess various possible reasons that employers in general might not hire, retain, or accommodate workers with disabilities and to rate strategies and policy changes that might make it more likely for employers to do so. Results As cited by respondents, the principal barriers to employing workers with disabilities are lack of awareness of disability and accommodation issues, concern over costs, and fear of legal liability. With regard to strategies employers might use to increase hiring and retention, respondents identified increased training and centralized disability and accommodation expertise and mechanisms. Public policy approaches preferred by respondents include no-cost external problem-solving, subsidized accommodations, tax breaks, and mediation in lieu of formal complaints or lawsuits. Conclusions Findings suggest straightforward approaches that employers might use to facilitate hiring and retention of workers with disabilities, as well as new public programs or policy changes that could increase labor force participation among working-age adults who have disabilities.

Resistance to the use of prescribed fire is strong among many private land managers despite the advantages it offers for maintaining fire-adapted ecosystems. Even managers who are aware of the benefits of using prescribed fire as a management tool avoid using it, citing potential liability as a major reason for their aversion. Recognizing the importance of prescribed fire for ecosystem management and the constraints current statutory schemes impose on its use, several states in the United States have undertaken prescribed burn statutory reform. The stated purpose of these statutory reforms, often called \"right to burn\" or \"prescribed burning\" acts, is to encourage prescribed burning for resource protection, public safety, and land management. Our research assessed the consequences of prescribed burn statutory reform by identifying legal incentives and impediments to prescribed fire application for ecosystem restoration and management, as well as fuel reduction. Specifically, we explored the relationship between prescribed burning laws and decisions made by land managers by exploiting a geographic-based natural experiment to compare landowner-prescribed fire use in contiguous counties with different regulations and legal liability standards. Controlling for potentially confounding variables, we found that private landowners in counties with gross negligence liability standards burn significantly more hectares than those in counties with simple negligence standards ( F 6,72 = 4.16, P = 0.046). There was no difference in hectares burned on private land between counties with additional statutorily mandated regulatory requirements and those requiring only a permit to complete a prescribed burn ( F 6,72 = 1.42, P = 0.24) or between counties with burn ban exemptions for certified prescribed burn managers and those with no exemptions during burn bans ( F 6,72 = 1.39, P = 0.24). Lawmakers attempting to develop prescribed burning statutes to promote the safe use of prescribed fire should consider the benefits of lower legal liability standards in conjunction with regulatory requirements that promote safety for those managing forests and rangelands with fire. Moreover, ecologists and land managers might be better prepared and motivated to educate stakeholder groups who influence prescribed fire policies if they are cognizant of the manner in which policy regulations and liability concerns create legal barriers that inhibit the implementation of effective ecosystem management strategies.

Temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal persons is a strategy to reduce the incidence of suicide deaths. We discuss a barrier to the effective operation of voluntary temporary firearm transfer laws: the dearth of guidance on the liability for returning firearms to persons who voluntarily surrender them. We examine the laws of all 50 US states that regulate temporary surrenders of firearms and evaluate whether any provisions govern liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms. Although 14 states create background check exceptions to permit temporary transfers of firearms from an owner to family, friends, retailers, or law enforcement, no states prescribe procedures for returning those firearms.ability for returning the firearms to people who voluntarily surrendered them. We recommend amending state laws to clarify the process and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms to the original owner. Such amendments would be intended to mitigate the potential chilling effect that lack of clarity and presumption of liability may impose on efficiently reducing firearm access to protect firearm owners at risk for suicide.

Background Off-label drug use exists widely in medical practice and is also an area which easily triggers controversy between patients and medical institutions. Previous studies have identified the reasons why off-label drug use long exists. However, there is no multidimensional analysis on real judicial precedents about off-label drug use. This study aimed to investigate the dispute points on off-label drug use based on real cases in China, and proposed suggestions based on newly-leased Physicians Law. Methods Our study is a retrospective study with all the 35 judicial precedents on off-label drug use extracted from China Judgments Online from 2014 to 2019. This study mainly used the methods of statistical analysis, inferential analysis, exemplification, literature summarization and comparative analysis. Results According to the analysis of the 35 precedents of jurisdictions from 11 different aspects, it can be seen that the second-instance and retrial rates of this kind of cases are high, and the disputes between patients and medical institutions are fierce. In judicial practice of off-label drug use, medical institutions are determined whether to bear civil liability according to the constituent elements of medical tort liability: the rate of medical institutions’ bearing liability for off-label drug use is not high, and medical institutions are not directly identified as infringing acts and they don’t bear tort liability. The clear provisions about off-label drug use in Law of the People’s Republic of China on Physicians which was implemented in March 2022 confirm this at the legislative level. Conclusions By analyzing the current judicial practice of China’s off-label drug use cases, and summarizing the dispute points between medical institution and patients, the constituent elements of tort liability, and the rules of evidence etc., suggestions are proposed to further regulate off-label drug use and promote safe and rational drug use.

The U.S. medical malpractice liability system has two principal objectives: to compensate patients who are injured through the negligence of healthcare providers and to deter providers from practicing negligently. In practice, however, the system is slow and costly to administer. It both fails to compensate patients who have suffered from bad medical care and compensates those who haven't. According to opinion surveys of physicians, the system creates incentives to undertake cost-ineffective treatments based on fear of legal liability—to practice “defensive medicine.” The failures of the liability system and the high cost of health care in the United States have led to an important debate over tort policy. How well does malpractice law achieve its intended goals? How large of a problem is defensive medicine and can reforms to malpractice law reduce its impact on healthcare spending? The flaws of the existing system have led a number of states to change their laws in a way that would reduce malpractice liability—to adopt “tort reforms.” Evidence from several studies suggests that wisely chosen reforms have the potential to reduce healthcare spending significantly with no adverse impact on patient health outcomes.

[...]guidelines have relative value and are also contrary to the principle of the equivalence of lives in liberal democracies. [...]a judge may not consider those guidelines as a defense thereby undermining the existence of proportionality of a doctor’s choice, thus rendering necessity inapplicable. Potential legal liability for withdrawing or withholding ventilators during COVID-19: assessing the risks and identifying needed reforms. Clinical ethics recommendations for the allocation of intensive care treatments in exceptional, resource-limited circumstances. 2020. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwigk-nHyvnoAhXMo4sKHeEbCYQQFjAAegQIARAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siaarti.it%2FSiteAssets%2FNews%2FCOVID19%2520-%2520documenti%2520SIAARTI%2FSIAARTI%2520-%2520Covid-19%2520-%2520Clinical%2520Ethics%2520Reccomendations.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0lAi8uYc8qNBl2BF9AygoH.5. 5.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate.