The juridical status of the fetus: a proposal for legal protection of the unborn

This article investigates the juridical status of the fetus. It assesses what this status should be in the light of recent developments in case law, legislation, medicine, and technology (particularly in vitro fertilization). The article is presented in 5 sections: Section 1 deals with the supreme court's landmark decision in Roe vs. Wade, which relied on biological stages of fetal development rather than philosophical determination of when life begins. Section 2 examines the historical reliance on birth as the point at which legal protection vests in the developing human. Section 3 compares fetuses with newborn children, identifying relevant similarities and differences. Section 4 studies whether the fetus at all stages of development should have the same protection (the author concludes they should not). Section 5 examines the practical implications of choosing viability as a developmental stage of special significance for legal protection.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

Juridical and constitutional implications of CARICOM treaty practice

In a case involving a CARICOM member state in relation to the Agreement Establishing the Council for Legal Education (CLE), several law students of one member state party to the Agreement were denied their entitlement to pursue professional studies in a school of law established for the purpose in another member state because the second member state had not implemented the relevant provision of the CLE Agreement. The CLE in the member state concerned pleaded the absence of an enacting provision in the Legal Profession Act as the ground for not observing the provisions of the Agreement. No action was brought at the international level by the state of the students aggrieved to vindicate their rights and the action brought by the students themselves at the municipal level did not and could not succeed. Following an overview of CARICOM treaty practice, this article examines the effects of unincorporated treaties in the light of dualism, to which doctrine the overriding majority of CARICOM states subscribe.