Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"This book is primarily geared toward estate planners and probate litigators, it may provide a greater understanding of issues relating to capacity, the attorney's role, and the process known as \"undue influence.\" This book does not constitute legal advice\"--.

Age-related issues, including diminished capacity, can be a significant indicator of the potential vulnerability of a client to undue influence, and also an indicator that our population as a whole is aging. Elder abuse has been called \"\"the crime of the 21st century.\"\" Undue influence is a form of financial abuse of the elderly, with the large number of reported cases and estimated $1.17 billion in damages just the tip of the iceberg. Looking at the topic from a legal perspective, Undue Influence and Vulnerable Adults addresses both the role and the importance of the attorney when representing a vulnerable adult. The book's authors, who each command extensive experience in the area, explain the relevant considerations and provide strategies when litigation is required. Their practical and legal advice on issues will assist planners identify issues and then create effective plans for vulnerable adults that may better withstand attack. Undue Influence and Vulnerable Adults also helps readers understand the options and potential consequences of proactive waivers and permissions for release of information as well as the potential importance of being able to initiate contact with family or other trusted advisors when concerns about capacity and/or undue influence subsequently arise. In addition, the authors provide strategies from a litigation perspective on handling efforts to invalidate as well as defend instruments claimed to be the result of undue influence.

Ethical issues specific to payment in academic research via crowd work (a.k.a. crowd work-based research) have not been extensively examined or discussed in the prior literature, while similar topics have been debated in biomedical research for years. In particular, IRBs’ perspectives are lacking in the current scholarship about research ethics and crowd work in the U.S. where crowd work-based research has become a popular arena for human subjects research. To fill these gaps, we interviewed 32 scholars and IRB directors and analysts in the U.S. to probe their perspectives on ethical issues in crowd work-based research. In this paper, we revealed an ethical dilemma between undue influence, fair payment, and whether the monetary incentive can be regarded as a research benefit to crowd workers. Based on these findings, we reflected on the origin of this ethical dilemma, compared and critiqued the scholars’ and IRBs’ ethical positions in this respect. Afterward, we discussed our research implications for scholars, IRBs, and crowd work platforms in the U.S. and reported our research limitations and plans for future work.

At the center of contemporary debates over public law lies administrative agencies' discretion to impose rules. Yet for every one of these rules, there are also unrules nearby. Often overlooked and sometimes barely visible, unrules are the decisions that regulators make to lift or limit the scope of a regulatory obligation through, for instance, waivers, exemptions, or exceptions. In some cases, unrules enable regulators to reduce burdens on regulated entities or to conserve valuable government resources in ways that make law more efficient. However, too much discretion to create unrules can facilitate undue business influence over the law, weaken regulatory schemes, and even undermine the rule of law. In this Article, we conduct the first systematic empirical investigation of the hidden world of unrules. Using a computational-linguistic approach to identify unrules across the 'Federal Register', the 'Code of Federal Regulations', and the 'United States Code', we show that unrules are an integral and substantial feature of the federal regulatory system. Our analysis shows that, by several conservative measures, there exists one obligation-alleviating word for approximately every five to six obligation-imposing words in federal law. We also show that unrules are surprisingly unrestrained by administrative law. In stark contrast to administrative law's treatment of obligationimposing rules, regulators enjoy greater discretion when deploying unrules to alleviate regulatory obligations. As a result, a major form of agency power remains hidden from view and relatively unencumbered by law. Recognizing the central role that unrules play in our regulatory system reveals the need to reorient administrative law and incorporate unrules more explicitly into its assumptions, doctrines, and procedures.

Background Critical knowledge of what we know about health and disease, risk factors, causation, prevention, and treatment, derives from epidemiology. Unfortunately, its methods and language can be misused and improperly applied. A repertoire of methods, techniques, arguments, and tactics are used by some people to manipulate science, usually in the service of powerful interests, and particularly those with a financial stake related to toxic agents. Such interests work to foment uncertainty, cast doubt, and mislead decision makers by seeding confusion about cause-and-effect relating to population health. We have compiled a toolkit of the methods used by those whose interests are not aligned with the public health sciences. Professional epidemiologists, as well as those who rely on their work, will thereby be more readily equipped to detect bias and flaws resulting from financial conflict-of-interest, improper study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation, bringing greater clarity—not only to the advancement of knowledge, but, more immediately, to policy debates. Methods The summary of techniques used to manipulate epidemiological findings, compiled as part of the 2020 Position Statement of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy (INEP) entitled Conflict-of-Interest and Disclosure in Epidemiology , has been expanded and further elucidated in this commentary. Results Some level of uncertainty is inherent in science. However, corrupted and incomplete literature contributes to confuse, foment further uncertainty, and cast doubt about the evidence under consideration. Confusion delays scientific advancement and leads to the inability of policymakers to make changes that, if enacted, would—supported by the body of valid evidence—protect, maintain, and improve public health. An accessible toolkit is provided that brings attention to the misuse of the methods of epidemiology. Its usefulness is as a compendium of what those trained in epidemiology, as well as those reviewing epidemiological studies, should identify methodologically when assessing the transparency and validity of any epidemiological inquiry, evaluation, or argument. The problems resulting from financial conflicting interests and the misuse of scientific methods, in conjunction with the strategies that can be used to safeguard public health against them, apply not only to epidemiologists, but also to other public health professionals. Conclusions This novel toolkit is for use in protecting the public. It is provided to assist public health professionals as gatekeepers of their respective specialty and subspecialty disciplines whose mission includes protecting, maintaining, and improving the public’s health. It is intended to serve our roles as educators, reviewers, and researchers.

Is there still time to switch my practice area?] States and state regulators have had a model law available to them for seventy years issued by their own coordinating body, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Despite a valiant attempt by a NAIC working group in 2020 to promulgate an updated model law, and even achieving endorsement by the broader NAIC governing body itself, no states have adopted the revised model law, leaving the entire state of the law a tangled mess. The United States Supreme Court has explained that insurance is a \"contract whereby, for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specified subject by specified perils. \"3 Central to this idea is that insurance must transfer risk from insureds to an insurer for the purpose of redistributing (spreading) those risks among the pooled group of insureds, and to do so requires the insurer to be able to actuarially predict the exposure being received from one insured such that the insurer can properly assess and reallocate those risks among the other insureds by translating them into a component of each insured's premium.· The Supreme Court carefully distinguished these risks (the insureds' exposures) from the insurance company's own exposures, the latter of which are not the \"business of insurance\" but rather just the business activities of an insurance company.'

Vitiating factors in contract law raise difficult and interesting questions. Lawful act duress has been subject to detailed scrutiny in 'Times Travel (UK) Ltd. v Pakistan International Airline Corp' [2021] UKSC 40, [2021] 3 W.L.R. 727, albeit the decision has been subject to criticism (see Morgan [2022] C.L.J. 16). The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 'Heller v Uber Technologies' 2020 S.C.C. 16 shone some light on unconscionable bargains (see Hunt [2021] C.L.J. 25). Now it was the turn of undue influence in 'Nature Resorts Ltd. v First Citizens Bank Ltd'. [2022] UKPC 10, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 2788.

Medical students encounter pharmaceutical promotion from the very start of their training. Medical schools have an important role to play in educating medical students regarding the interactions between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and industry and in protecting them from commercial influence and conflict of interest (COI). In 2019, medical student associations in Belgium and abroad called for more preparation in dealing with COI and for a more independent medical training. As little information is available on the situation in our country, we undertook an assessment of conflict of interest policies at Belgium's medical schools. We relied on a methodology already used in studies from USA, Canada, Australia, France and Germany and adapted it to the Belgian context. We identified 10 medical schools in Belgium. We searched the website of each medical school in November 2019 with standardized keywords for COI policies and learning activities on COI in the curriculum. The deans of medicine were invited to participate by sending us information that we could have overlooked during our web-based searches. We also consulted personal contacts within faculties among students and teachers. Based on a list of 15 criteria adapted from North American and French studies, we calculated a total for each faculty of medicine with a maximum score of 30 points. By December 2019, we had gathered a set of written documents for four faculties of medicine (40%) containing policies with varying degrees of precision and relevance to our survey. We found elements of the curriculum addressing the COI issue for one faculty (10%). In all cases, these policies consisted of \"moderate\" initiatives with little or no \"restrictive\" elements. Only one faculty showed interest in our study by providing us with relevant information (10%). Half of the faculty notified us of their refusal to participate in the study (50%) and the other faculties either did not respond or did not provide us with any information (40%). The maximum score obtained was 3 out of 30 points with six faculties scoring 0 (60%). There is little transparency regarding interactions between medical students and pharmaceutical companies at Belgian medical faculties, which may create COI issues. Initiatives to protect students from pharmaceutical promotion and to train them to manage their future interaction with pharmaceutical companies have a limited scope and are isolated. This is inconsistent with international recommendations from Health Action International, World Health Organization or the American Medical Students' Association. The Belgian government has legislated in favor of more transparency in the relation between HCPs and pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, it made the disclosure of benefits granted by the industry compulsory and limited their value. Our results show that there is still some way to go to ensure an independent medical training for future Belgian physicians.

Biomedical research often enrolls people living with HIV (PLWH) receiving effective treatment to complete invasive procedures. This mixed methods study characterized determinants of willingness to undergo specific biomedical procedures among PLWH. In 2017, 61 participants (77% Black) from Miami completed a quantitative assessment examining willingness to participate. A subset of 19 participants completed an in-depth qualitative interview. Across all procedures, there was greater willingness to participate if asked by a primary care provider and if experimental results were shared. However, half of participants reported that they would experience undue influence (i.e., excessive persuasion) to participate from their primary care provider. In thematic analyses, altruism and personal benefit were identified as facilitators while medication changes, confidentiality, and perceived stigma were identified as barriers to participation in HIV biomedical research. Addressing participants’ expectations and mitigating potential undue influence from primary care providers could optimize the ethical conduct of HIV biomedical studies.

The scientific credibility of the administrative state is under siege in the United States, risking distressful public health harms and even deaths. This Article addresses one component of this attack--executive interference in agency scientific decisionmaking. It offers a new conceptual framework, \"internal agency capture,\" and policy prescription for addressing excessive overreach and interference by the executive branch in the scientific decisionmaking of federal agencies. The Article's critiques and analysis toggle a timeline that reflects recent history and that urges forward-thinking approaches to respond to executive overreach in agency scientific decisionmaking. Taking the Trump Administration and other presidencies as test cases, it scrutinizes who should control, or alternatively advance or limit, an agency's scientific decisions, which are distinct from its policymaking decisions. With its \"internal agency capture\" framework and the COVID-19 pandemic as its backdrop, the Article illustrates the phenomenon of excessive executive overreach at work in the scientific decisionmaking of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (\"FDA\"), glaringly reflected in the Agency's decisions on reproductive medicines and protocols to respond to the pandemic. This Article demonstrates that covert internal capture can mislead the public, pose serious risks to individual and public health, undermine the arm's-length neutrality and objectivity of agencies, and result in lasting consequences for agency legitimacy and reputation.