Procreative torts: enhancing the common-law protection for reproductive autonomy

Roe v. Wade's twenty-fifth anniversary is likely to herald widespread scholarly commentary on the decision's continued vitality and the future of abortion in the United States. However, if such commentary focuses solely upon the constitutional dimensions and political aspects of a woman's right to privacy, an important dimension of this right will be overlooked. Few commentators have considered the extent to which tort law safeguards a woman's interest in reproductive autonomy. In this article, Professor Northern argues that the interest in reproductive autonomy has not yet received the full protection to which it is entitled and that tort law is poised to evolve distinct causes of action for the interference with procreative autonomy interests. Professor Northern begins with an overview of the medical and psychological literature on abortion-related risks. She goes on to discuss current trends in abortion malpractice litigation. The author then reviews the three basic types of malpractice causes of action--battery, negligence, and lack of informed consent--and explores their application to abortion malpractice claims. The focus of the article then shifts to the development of specialized procreative torts, and Professor Northern contends that courts should go beyond previous decisions to redress any substantial interference with procreative autonomy. Finally, the author asserts that legislative alternatives to the common-law development of procreative torts, such as right-to-know statutes, are less protective of women's interests. Professor Northern concludes that tort law could and should be used to more fully protect women's interests in procreative autonomy.     

Conceiving harm: disability discrimination in assisted reproductive technologies

Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to denials of treatment by assisted reproductive technology (ART) practitioners raises particularly challenging legal and ethical issues. On the one hand, the danger that physicians will inappropriately deny treatment to patients with disabilities is especially worrisome in the context of ARTs, given the widespread stigma associated with reproduction by individuals with disabilities. On the other hand, patients' disabilities may sometimes have potentially devastating implications for any child resulting from treatment, including the possibility that the child will be born with life-threatening or seriously debilitating impairments. Some physicians have strong ethical objections to helping patients become pregnant in the face of such risks. In this Article, Professor Coleman develops a framework for applying the ADA to disability-based denials of ARTs that addresses these competing considerations. In recognizing risks to the future child as a potential defense to a disability discrimination claim, Professor Coleman rejects the view of some commentators that such risks are relevant to reproductive decisions only if the child is likely to suffer so much that he or she would prefer not to exist. Instead, he proposes that, when a patient's disabilities create significant risks to the future child, the question should not be whether the child's life is likely to be so awful that nonexistence would be preferable, but how the risks and benefits of the requested treatment compare to those associated with other available reproductive and parenting options. Professor Coleman provides a theoretical justification for adopting this comparative framework, and examines how ADA precedents developed in other contexts should be applied to decisions about ARTs.     

Contradictory interests: Work, parents, and offspring in early modern Holland

The consistory notes of the Dutch Reformed Church (1573–1700) reveal conflicts over work between parents and children during the early modern period. Two issues that caused particular tension were the labor experience of future sons-in-law and the division of household tasks. Parents' concerns about the financial position of their future son-in-law were sincere and realistic. Skills definitely bettered the new family's chances to survive financially. Children were not expected to take care of their destitute parents nor were parents obliged to support their poverty-stricken married children. Power struggles between children and stepparents also resulted in conflicts over work. After a widowed parent remarried, children and stepparents had to redefine their roles in the new situation. The child who had assumed responsibilities when a parent died resisted a stepparent who took over those tasks. Although the cases presented may not represent everyday interactions between parents and children, they do provide insights into how work caused problems between parents and older children.     

Emergent patterns in the regulation of pharmaceuticals: institutions and interests in the United States,Canada, Britain,and France

Although industrialized nations regulate pharmaceuticals to ensure their safety and efficacy, they balance these concerns with those related to the timeliness of the approval process and the burdens involved in meeting regulatory criteria. The United States, Canada, Britain, and France have adopted different approaches to the regulation of pharmaceuticals that place varying emphases on these competing goals and involve the participation of private interests to different extents. The regulatory approval processes and the government-industry relationships inherent within them are compared in the United States, Canada, Britain, and France by analyzing five features that distinguish the U.S. pluralist from the European corporatist approaches to policy development: representation (internal versus external), process (closed versus open), stance (informal, accommodative versus formal, adversarial), institutional power (fragmented versus centralized), and resources. An institutional framework further characterizes these approaches as based on models of managerial discretion and adjudication (United States), consultation (Canada), and bargaining (Britain, France) to clarify the patterns that emerge. While the approach that most effectively supports product safety involves managerial discretion as occurs in the United States, formal mechanisms for negotiation might be incorporated rather than a reliance on the judicial process. In an era of globalization and regulatory harmonization such divergence has significant implications. First, where harmonization in Europe involves the mutual recognition of one country's product licensing decision by the others, differences in evaluative processes remain important. Second, as harmonization leads to a common set of regulatory criteria, the criteria adopted tend to be those of nations with the least stringent regulatory standards, making evident the need for more responsive systems of post-market surveillance to protect the public interest.