Legislative and educational alternatives to a judicial remedy for the transfer trauma dilemma

Transfer trauma is alleged to be an increase in morbidity and mortality in institutionally relocated chronically ill elderly. Efforts by the legal profession to persuade courts that transfer trauma should be a legally recognized phenomenon invoking judicial protections against transfer (the "transfer trauma argument") have been unproductive. In O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, Inc., the United States Supreme Court denied standing to elderly persons claiming a property interest in remaining in alleged substandard facilities. The Court rejected the argument that the possibility of transfer trauma constituted a deprivation of life or liberty that would have required due process protections of notice and hearing. Despite the Court's preclusion of transfer trauma litigation in a constitutional context and the general unwillingness of lower courts to recognize the phenomenon, attorneys continue to burden the judicial system with frivolous transfer trauma arguments. The unfruitful pursuit of a judicial remedy for the ethical and social problems that arise with relocation of the elderly continues, in part, because of a misguided belief that this distressing social phenomenon is best remedied by the courts. Judicial unwillingness to recognize the transfer trauma argument, however, does not preclude legislative consideration of the humanitarian issues concerning the institutional relocation of elderly persons. This Article examines gerontological research in order to understand the judicial rejection of the transfer trauma argument and argues in support of legislative and educational solutions for the ethical and social problems attending transfer.     

Independent instances of "souvenir" Asian skulls from the Tampa Bay area

In the summer of 1984, police in Pinellas County, Florida, confiscated six identically colored imported Asian skulls (in a shipping case) from a private citizen. In May 1988, in nearby Hillsborough County, police confiscated a very similar skull from another private citizen, who allegedly had found it in an abandoned house. Aside from slight color differences between the six found in Pinellas County and the one found in Hillsborough County, the skulls are virtually identical in their osteological characteristics and condition and in the vital statistics derived from each. Each skull is as clean and dry as those typically sold by commercial scientific supply outlets in the United States. Each is edentulous (primarily premortem), between approximately 20 and 60 years of age at death, and morphologically Asian. Five of the seven are morphologically male, one is morphologically female, and one is a mosaic with respect to gender-related features. Police, medical examiners, coroners, and forensic anthropologists should be aware of such "souvenir" specimens, in the event that they encounter similar skulls. Discriminant function analyses for race and sex yield considerably conflicting results, which underscores the need for using extreme caution when interpreting forensic science estimates based on such techniques.