Vaccination and other altruistic medical treatments: should autonomy or communitarianism prevail?

The publication of a report into a case where an organ donor's constraints on the race of potential recipients raises questions about whether respect for autonomy or communitiarianism should prevail in altruistic medical procedures. This article briefly reviews how autonomy and communitarianism are balanced in cadaveric and live organ donation, bone marrow donation, gamete donation, blood donation and vaccination. It criticizes vaccination policy for ostensibly respecting patient autonomy yet in practice compromising that autonomy in various ways. Vaccination is properly viewed as an altruistic medical procedure because some vaccines are of more good to society than to the vaccinee, who runs associated health risks. The conclusion is that there is a spectrum of attitudes to the value of autonomy, depending principally upon the invasiveness of the procedure. In most cases the autonomy-communitarianism balance is satisfactory, but this is not so in respect of cadaveric organ donation and vaccination. The article proposes that cadaveric organ donation should be governed by the communitarian law of well-publicised presumed consent. It proposes two alternatives for vaccination: that vaccination should be compulsory or, preferably, that procedures be modified so that parents have real autonomy in their decisions whether to vaccinate their children.     

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.     

Ownership conversions in health care organizations: who should benefit?

Because equity capital is becoming an important financing source for health care organizations, the conversion of many such organizations from nonprofit to for-profit status is a significant public policy issue. Since many states require converting nonprofits to repay the "community" for its investment during the nonprofit status period, three questions arise: (1) How much is the entity worth? (2) How much of that worth should be returned to the community? (3) In what form should it be returned? The paper addresses these questions, and demonstrates why responsible public policy calls for them to be carefully considered if community interests are to be preserved.     

Fat and the law: who should take the blame?

The incidence of obesity in both adults and children is rising at a rapid rate in most developed countries, including in Australia. Some obese people are seeking to place the blame for their condition on the fast-food industry, as demonstrated by the recent litigation in the United States brought by two obese plaintiffs against McDonald's. This litigation was unsuccessful, and on existing Australian negligence principles any similar litigation commenced here is likely to suffer the same fate. Principles of personal responsibility, autonomy and free will should prevail to deny a negligence claim. The risk of obesity and concomitant health problems from eating fast food to excess is an obvious risk which the plaintiff should not have ignored and which he or she has voluntarily assumed. It is for the Australian Government, not the courts, to regulate the behaviour of the fast-food industry. The government should take action by requiring all major fast-food chains to label their products with nutritional information, and by imposing restrictions on the advertising of food to children.     

What medical school did you graduate from? Judicial prescribing of medical treatments

There is much in the literature concerning conflicts between clinicians and the law over who should make decisions in a legal context, such as involuntary hospitalization or patients' competency to make treatment decisions. There is little, however, about judges' trying to impose specific treatment decisions on clinicians. This article addresses that situation and the problems such orders cause.