Conscientious objection and equality laws: Why the content of the conscience matters

Law and Philosophy - By enacting equality laws the liberal state decides the limits of liberal tolerance by relying on content-based rather than content-neutral considerations. Equality laws are...     

Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris: a dubious consequence of piecemeal health care legislation

For almost forty years, legislators have advocated comprehensive measures designed to assure Americans quality health care. Instead of implementing an integrated health care plan, Congress has intermittently enacted statutes which address specific health care delivery problems. At times the judiciary has stretched the ambit of existing health legislation in response to particular plaintiffs' urgent claims. This Case Comment examines the dilemma of piecemeal legislation and judicial policymaking as exemplified by Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas v. Harris, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals health care financing decision whose outcome Congress has flatly rejected.     

Access to health care for illegal immigrants: a specific organisation in France

Health care is a fundamental human right in Europe, and all Member States recognise everyone's right to the access to preventive healthcare and to receive medical care in the event of sickness or pregnancy. Nevertheless, this right is focused on citizens and the application to migrants, particularly undocumented migrants, varies widely in the EU. The French legislation is organized with a humanitarian approach. In this article, the authors present the French system of social protection, the "Couvernture médicale universelle" or CMU, which provides the same protection to asylum seekers and documented immigrants as to nationals, and the "Aide médicale d'état" or AME, that is open to every person who does not fulfil the legal conditions to obtain the CMU, such as illegal immigrants. Created in 1995, recently access to the AME has been restricted. A claim of discrimination has been rejected by the Conseil d'Etat and 215,000 persons received the AME in 2009. The expenses incurred by the AME increased by 17% in 2010, and there is a debate in Parliament to limit care and to ask the recipient for a financial contribution.     

The HIV-infected health care provider. Doe v. Attorney General of the United States

Doe demonstrates that once an employer enters into a relationship with an individual and thereafter determines that he or she may be disabled, the employer has the right to ask the individual questions about the possible disability when those questions are relevant to assessing his or her qualifications for continuing on the job. In fact, once a health care provider is on notice that an employee's or physician's disability may render the employee or physician no longer qualified, thereby potentially endangering patients, the provider is required to determine whether the person is qualified for the job. In these sensitive matters, employers must draw a fine line between unreasonably following up on every rumor on the one hand, and on the other hand investigating reliable information when there may indeed be a direct threat to patients.