- Browse by Title
Robert H. McKinney School of Law
Permanent URI for this community
Browse
Browsing Robert H. McKinney School of Law by Title
Now showing 1 - 10 of 1011
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item 1-900-New Kids: The Clash Between Newsgathering and the Right of Publicity(1991) Baker, Cynthia A.Item The 2014 Leadership Academy: Six Months Out(2014) deMaine, Susan DavidItem A Framework for Tribal Public Health Law(2019) Hoss, AilaItem Abortion and Compelled Physician Speech(Wiley, 2015) Orentlicher, David; Robert H. McKinney School of LawAs states increasingly impose informed consent mandates on abortion providers, the required disclosures bring two well-established legal doctrines into conflict — the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the physician’s duty to obtain informed consent. On one hand, the First Amendment precludes the government from forcing individuals to voice the government’s views. On the other hand, legislatures and courts can insist that physicians properly explain to patients about their medical conditions and potential treatments so patients can make informed decisions about their health care. When taking care of patients, doctors assume a duty to speak, as well as a duty to speak responsibly. Ordinarily, the doctrines of free speech and informed consent coexist without much difficulty. But as states have expanded the kinds of information that abortion providers must disclose to pregnant women, First Amendment concerns have become increasingly salient. In this article, I will use several examples of speech mandates for abortion and other health care services to identify principles for distinguishing between legitimate regulation of the informed consent process and illegitimate interference with the freedom of speech. First, speech mandates should be permissible when they provide material information to patients about their health care decisions. If the state is trying to ensure that patients are fully informed, the mandates should be allowed. As a corollary, the information must be truthful and not be misleading. The goal is to inform not to misinform. Second, speech mandates that pertain to moral considerations should not be permitted. Rather than informing the patient’s decision, these mandates force the physician or other health professional to espouse the state’s ideology. Courts and legal scholars have proposed other ways to distinguish permissible from impermissible mandates (e.g., whether the government takes sides, manipulates emotions, or uses graphic images). However, these additional distinctions raise their own concerns and should not be needed. If courts strictly apply the requirements that compelled speech pertain to medical facts about abortion and its alternatives rather than abortion ideology and that the compelled speech be truthful and not misleading, then the interests of pregnant women and their physicians should be protected.Item Access to Justice?: A Study of Access Restrictions on the Papers of U.S. Supreme Court Justices(2016-07) deMaine, Susan David; Keele, Benjamin J.Item Access to Knowledge in India(2011) Shaver, LeaThis essay is a preview of the author's upcoming book Access to Knowledge in India: New Research on Intellectual Property, Innovation, and Development, an edited volume which contains contributionsfrom various scholars on the access to knowledge alongside development and trade. While the essay seeks to bring together views and insights gleaned from various chapters of the book, the author simultaneously pushes forward her argument concerning the role that courts have to play in toning down excessive intellectual property protection using the language of human rights. In particula, the author argues that constitutional law has the poten tial tofurther socioeconomic rights which are affected by intellectual property protection. The author feels that Indian constitutional litigation has taken the right step in this direction and is a model for courts in other jurisdictions as well as for international norm-setting.Item Access to the Justices' Papers: A Better Balance(2018) deMaine, Susan DavidWith the exception of official court records, the papers generated by the Supreme Court justices in their work for the Court are and have always been considered private property. As a result, the justices’ treatment of these documents is idiosyncratic, ranging from outright destruction to lengthy restrictions to quick release. Adding the perspective of archivists and librarians, this paper explores the history of the justices’ papers and questions of access, the public’s interest in understanding the Court and its decisions, and the effect of the justices’ papers on scholarship and popular research. Several options for encouraging greater openness are proposed.Item The Accidental Administrative Law of the Medicare Program(2015) Kinney, Eleanor D.; Robert H. McKinney School of LawItem Achieving Reproductive Justice in the International Surrogacy Market(2012) Mohapatra, SeemaMen and women are increasingly seeking surrogacy arrangements outside of their home country, mainly due to legal restrictions or the high cost of surrogacy in their home countries. Global surrogacy raises numerous issues including the economic status of women involved in surrogacy arrangements, poverty, issues related to what motherhood means and how women from different ethnic, socioeconomic, class, and national backgrounds interact in the global surrogacy market. This essay briefly analyzes whether reproductive justice exists in the current international surrogacy market.