排序方式: 共有13条查询结果,搜索用时 103 毫秒
1.
Wendy K. Mariner 《The Journal of law, medicine & ethics》1995,23(3):236-246
2.
Mariner WK 《Journal of health law》2005,38(2):247-285
This Article examines three questions: What is public health? What is public health law? What roles can lawyers play in public health? It first describes the breadth of public health, highlighting six trends shaping its future: social determinants of health; synergy between medicine and public health; shifts in focus from external (e.g., environmental and social) to internal (behavioral) risks to health; federalization of public health law; globalization of health risks and responses; and bioterrorism. Because the domains of law that apply to public health are equally broad, the Article next offers a conceptual framework for identifying the types of laws most suitable to different public health problems. Finally, the role of lawyers in the applied field of public health law is examined, first to encourage attention to law's effect on health, even laws having little apparent relationship to health; and second, to recognize that laws intended to achieve specific health outcomes may affect broader legal principles. Lawyers have a unique role to play in ensuring that the legal principles used to promote health also preserve justice. 相似文献
3.
Wendy K. Mariner 《Law & social inquiry》1988,13(2):385-406
4.
5.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Amendment VIII of the Constitution of the United States 相似文献
Amendment VIII of the Constitution of the United States 相似文献
6.
7.
Access to health care and equal protection of the law: the need for a new heightened scrutiny 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
W K Mariner 《American journal of law & medicine》1986,12(3-4):345-380
Proposals to reduce national expenditures for health care under Medicare and other programs raise questions about the limits on legislative power to distribute health care benefits. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection has been a weak source of protection for the sick, largely because they fail to qualify for special scrutiny under traditional equal protection analysis. Recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court suggest that the Justices seek a newer, more flexible approach to reviewing claims of unequal protection. This Article examines the application of the equal protection guarantee to health-related claims. It argues that traditional equal protection analysis is too rigid and newer rationality review too imprecise to provide just eligibility determinations. The Article concludes that courts should subject claims of unequal protection in the health care context to heightened scrutiny, as health care plays a special role in assuring equality of opportunity. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.