Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Word from the Editor
It is my pleasure to welcome you to LJN's Bioethics Legal Review on behalf of the publisher and the Board of Editors. Few areas are as controversial, far-reaching, and important as the broad field of bioethics. Dramatic advances in scientific knowledge and technology have led to some of the most provocative and difficult issues encountered in law, science, and ethics. Questions about genetic research, AIDS research, and whether federal funding for stem cell research should be increased (or even provided) are just of few of the issues being debated by the nation's leading commentators, bureaucrats, and politicians. Some of the recent events that have presented tough bioethical issues and captured widespread public interest have included the saga of the brain-damaged Terri Shiavo – and her death after the final round of court orders from state courts in Florida to cease providing her with nutrition and water (followed by legislation passed in Congress, and failed appeals by her parents to federal courts); the cloning of human embryos in foreign countries – and the ethical and moral issues that are possible from such activities; and, the (denied) request by a death row inmate for a stay of execution long enough so that he could donate a body organ to his chronically ill sister.
Members of Congress are rapidly becoming more focused on (and polarized about) bioethical issues. On June 8, 2005, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Chairman of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, announced that he had sent a letter to the Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Lester M. Crawford, questioning the make-up of the new drug and safety board set up by the Food and Drug Administration to provide independent review of FDA-approved medicines.
We have assembled an illustrious editorial board that can offer insights to readers from differing perspectives — industry, medical practice, academia, and private legal practice — on these and other issues. Bioethical concerns present difficult compliance and risk management issues for health care professionals involved in private and public clinical research, drug and medical device manufacturers, and academic institutions involved in research, among others – and the litigation risks can be substantial. In tandem with these financial costs are the reputational costs involved when researchers are alleged to have acted improperly, unethically, or without adequate oversight.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.