Board of Immigration Appeals Break Rank
July 27, 2005
In a rather startling postscript to the two-part story on the marriage rights of transgendered persons that ran in the June and July issues of this newsletter, we now have this to report: A branch of the federal government has declared valid for the purpose of recognition of immigration status the marriage of a female-to-male postoperative transsexual to a woman.
Custody for Same-Sex Couples
July 27, 2005
Almost 15 years ago, the California Court of Appeal became the first appellate court in the country to rule on a custody dispute between a lesbian couple. Although the petitioner in that case had jointly participated with her partner in the decision to bring a child into the world and had assumed all of the duties and responsibilities of a parent after the child's birth, the court held that she did not have standing even to seek visitation with her children -- that she was a legal stranger to them.
The Ethics Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
July 06, 2005
The discussion of stem cell research seems to touch all the bases - religious, legal, ethical, financial and scientific. With such a disparate range of views and contentions, along with the federal government's abdication of any sort of leadership role, it will be difficult and take a great deal of time, energy, emotion and dollars, to reach a consensus view.
Another View
July 06, 2005
Human stem cell research is complex. Do law and ethics address it the same way? Since the answer is emphatically "no," count on rapid and interesting developments in law and ethics, as the two approaches alternately converge and clash.
The Future of Medical Trials in America
July 06, 2005
Four years have passed since the landmark Gelsinger case, in which attorney/modern-day crusader Alan Milstein of Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky, Pennsauken, NJ (and a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors) successfully brought suit on behalf of the family of Jesse Gelsinger, who died during a gene-therapy experiment at the University of Pennsylvania. From that point on, it became a brave new world. According to William Hirschborn, director of the office of Clinical Trials at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, who commented at the time: "Milstein opened the door for doctors to be held accountable."
A Word from the Editor
July 06, 2005
Editor-in-Chief Michael E. Clark, Esq., welcomes you to our new publication.
Scientific Deception
July 06, 2005
Regulators are increasingly becoming concerned about pharmaceutical companies that offer financial and other incentives to physician-researchers, reasoning that the incentives may affect the physicians' judgment when they make treatment decisions for beneficiaries of health care programs. They think that this can result in increased costs being passed on to the federal government. In the worst-case scenario, such incentives could cause medically unnecessary items and services to be provided, and patients to be harmed.
The Ethical Implications of Prisoner Organ Donation
July 06, 2005
Shortly after midnight on May 25, 2005, Gregory Scott Johnson was pronounced dead by the state of Indiana. In the weeks before his death, Johnson had gained notoriety for seeking to delay his execution so that he could donate part of his liver to his sister, who suffers from cirrhosis unrelated to alcoholism. But Johnson died with his liver intact. (As it turns out, Johnson would have made a poor donor, since testing shortly before his execution revealed that he had hepatitis.) This article explores the current status of the law regarding prisoner organ donation and the ethical implications for various approaches, particularly with respect to condemned prisoners.
Insurance Coverage for Silica Claims
June 30, 2005
Faced with increasing exposure, corporate policyholders that have or may receive silica-related claims should consider the potential for insurance coverage that may be available to respond and should realize and maximize the full benefit of their insurance policies.
After Texas Court Avoids Question on Duty to Warn, Can Suppliers Relax?
June 30, 2005
The nation's silica litigation attorneys and their clients kept a close watch on a case decided last year in Texas that was supposed to help define the limits of liability for failure to warn of silicosis danger. It took nearly 2 years for the Texas Supreme Court to finally issue its decision in <i>Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. v. Gomez</i>, 146 S.W.3d 170 (Tex. 2004), holding that flint supplier Humble Sand & Gravel Inc. had no duty to warn companies whose employees used the product for abrasive blasting that there were risks associated with silica dust in the workplace. The reason the court gave for its decision was that the risks of silica dust in the workplace had been known for years and companies that regularly dealt with blasting materials were "sophisticated users."
