Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book is about the role of lawyers in constructing a just society. Its central objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between lawyers' commercial aims and public aspirations. Drawing on interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives, it explores whether lawyers can transcend self-interest to meaningfully contribute to systems of political accountability, ethical advocacy and distributional fairness. Its contributors, some of the world's leading scholars of the legal profession, offer evidence that although justice is possible, it is never complete. Ultimately, how much - and what type of - justice prevails depends on how lawyers respond to, and reshape, the political and economic conditions in which they practise. As the essays demonstrate, the possibility of justice is diminished as lawyers pursue self-regulation in the service of power; it is enhanced when lawyers mobilize - in the political arena, workplace and law school - to contest it\"-- Provided by publisher.

This book is about the role of lawyers in constructing a just society. Its central objective is to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between lawyers' commercial aims and public aspirations. Drawing on interdisciplinary and comparative perspectives, it explores whether lawyers can transcend self-interest to meaningfully contribute to systems of political accountability, ethical advocacy and distributional fairness. Its contributors, some of the world's leading scholars of the legal profession, offer evidence that although justice is possible, it is never complete. Ultimately, how much - and what type of - justice prevails depends on how lawyers respond to, and reshape, the political and economic conditions in which they practise. As the essays demonstrate, the possibility of justice is diminished as lawyers pursue self-regulation in the service of power; it is enhanced when lawyers mobilize - in the political arena, workplace and law school - to contest it.

A questionnaire was prepared in advance of the 26th triennial conference of the International Academy of Legal Medicine (IALM) and sent to 474 email addresses included in the IALM mailing list. The questionnaire addressed three current challenges faced by the International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM): the publication of guidelines and validation studies in the field of legal medicine, the publication ethics of case reports, and the recruitment of new reviewers for the IJLM. The response rate was 20%. The survey results highlight the need for international guidelines in various areas of legal medicine. Some desired guidelines already exist. To provide visibility and knowledge of the existing national guidelines, the IJLM has launched a Topical Collection on Quality Assurance in Legal Medicine. This collection aims to inform readers about country-specific characteristics of legal medicine structures and the existing national guidelines.Around 80% of the participants stated that there are legal or ethical requirements for the publication of forensic case reports or case series. Various options for obtaining consent for publication are discussed. Eighty-six of the 97 participants indicated their willingness to review manuscripts for the IJLM. It is emphasized that the contributions of reviewers should be duly recognized and valued.

This book is comprised of international author perspectives from the 2016 Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics (AAPAE) conference, hosted by the University of South Australia in Adelaide. The volume brings to life a number of the conference themes including corporate social responsibility, culture, academic integrity, vulnerability, health, military ethics, education, leadership, sustainability and philosophy and addresses concerns of many leading applied ethicists.

This is a report on a workshop titled ‘Ethics for genomic research across five African countries: Guidelines, experiences and challenges’, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 10 and 11 December 2012. The workshop was hosted by the Wits-INDEPTH partnership, AWI-Gen, as part of the H3Africa Consortium.

Biomarkers can be powerful tools to guide diagnosis, treatment, and research. However, prudent use of bio-markers requires formal validation efforts. Although the data needed for biomarker validation has traditionally been hard to access, new research initiatives can ease this process.

In catch and kill journalism, a tabloid buys a story that could be published elsewhere and then deliberately declines to publish it. In catch and kill jurisdiction, a federal court assumes jurisdiction over a case that could be litigated in state court and then declines to hear the merits through a nonmerits dismissal. Catch and kill journalism undermines the free flow of information. Catch and kill jurisdiction undermines the enforcement of substantive rights. And, importantly, because catch and kill jurisdiction relies on jurisdictional and procedural law, it is often able to achieve ends that would be politically unpalatable by other means. Catch and kill jurisdiction is a recurrent and growing phenomenon. This Article defines catch and kill jurisdiction and identifies areas where it can be found today, including in transnational and complex cases. This Article argues that catch and kill is likely to arise when federal judges are willing and able to expand federal jurisdiction and when federal courts are hostile to certain classes of claims or litigants. It also shows how catch and kill feeds back into more catch and kill—what I call the catch and kill ratchet. On the normative side, this Article does not argue that catch and kill is inherently wrong—indeed, some examples of catch and kill are normatively preferable. Instead, this Article argues that catch and kill jurisdiction is problematic when it relies on seeming neutrality, obscurity, and delegation to achieve deregulatory ends that might not be possible through substantive lawmaking. These concerns are exacerbated because federal judges—not legislators—are the lawmakers in catch and kill. Federalism values also are at stake when catch and kill defeats claims arising under state law. This Article’s analysis of catch and kill also helps clarify some of the issues raised by the Class Action Fairness Act, in which Congress employed a catch-and-kill-like strategy in service of deregulation. Finally, this Article explains why it will be challenging to reverse catch and kill in gross, though there are strategies to resist catch and kill in individual cases.

This symposium issue consists of papers presented at the 25th Annual Thomas A. Pitts Memorial Lectureship in Medical Ethics, April 4, 2019. The endowed lectureship, held annually since 1993, is funded by the Medical University of South Carolina Foundation through a bequest from Dr. Pitts, who served on MUSC's Board of Trustees for 36 years, including 25 years as its chair. The conference was presented by the Medical University of South Carolina, the Institute of Human Values in Health Care, the South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, the Office of Humanities, and the Office of Continuing Medical Education of the MUSC College of Medicine.The opioid crisis in the United States began in the 1990s, but the problem of drug addiction goes back much further: “Of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes the most habit-forming drugs per capita.” That statement was made in 1911 by Dr. Hamilton Wright, US Opium Commissioner.1 The massive increase in addictive drug use that began about 25 years ago has been variously described as a crisis or as an epidemic, but no matter the label, the problem is enormous. In 2018, 10.3 M Americans were classified as opioid misusers, and 2.1 M suffered from opioid use disorder (OUD).2 More importantly, 47,000 people died of opioid overdose in 2017, nearly 130 people a day.3 The economic cost of the crisis is considerable as well. In 2013 losses owing to addiction treatment, health care costs, loss of productivity, and law enforcement involvement amounted to over $78 B; those losses are probably much larger now.4

This symposium issue is the product of the 2019 Next Steps in Health Reform Conference. American University Washington College of Law launched the Next Steps in Health Reform conference in 2012 with a reprise in 2015. Beginning in 2017, the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics (ASLME) partnered with American University’s Washington College of Law, School of Public Affairs, and Kogod School of Business to expand the event to a threeday conference bringing together speakers and attendees from multiple disciplines, from the academy and practice, and from across the U.S. and Canada.

Advances in human genomics have the potential to transform risk prediction, disease diagnosis, identification of treatment options, and selection of medications and dose. Yet integration of genomics into clinical care remains uneven, with some organizations and medical specialties in the vanguard, but many more at an earlier stage in the process. While others have examined knowledge and economic barriers (including lack of insurance coverage for genomic testing), few have considered how law supports or hinders genomics implementation. Yet it turns out that law — and fear of legal repercussions — loom large.The goal of this Symposium is to analyze how law supports and impedes genomics implementation and to recommend changes to advance successful integration of genomics into clinical care. The work published here was funded by a unique grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) entitled, “LawSeq: Building a Sound Legal Foundation for Translating Genomics into Clinical Application.”1 That grant has funded a Working Group of twenty-two experts2 — including lawyers, genomics researchers, and clinicians, informatics specialists, and colleagues from industry genomics — to collaborate with the principal investigator team to map the current law of genomics in the United States and to generate recommendations on how to transform law to undergird successful integration of genomics into clinical care.Federal regulators such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are struggling to ensure the quality of devices, software, and laboratory processes used in genomics analysis.3 Law plays a crucial role in this regulatory domain; unless clinicians and patients have justifiable confidence in the validity of genomic tests and accuracy of their interpretation, progress in genomic implementation will be halting.Meanwhile, clinicians are facing questions of liability exposure in the fast-moving domain of genomics.4 They are caught between the Scylla of lagging behind and the Charybdis of going too fast.5 They face potential liability for failure to implement and properly understand genomic tools that have been successfully validated and incorporated into the standard of care, but also face potential liability if they rely on non-validated tools and tests whose clinical implications are not well established.