Life after death: preservation of the immortal seed

In today's brave new world, women who suffer the loss of their husband or lover can call upon medical science to create a souvenir baby. The rights of the decedent over his genetic material and the rights of the child who is created therefrom are the subject of an evolving legal process. This Essay examines legal, moral and ethical issues which arise from post-mortem artificial insemination. It discusses the attendant conflicts of procreative rights, finality of probate, psychological issues, international law, and recent cases. Ultimately, comprehensive legislation must be enacted to address these issues.     

I want my information back: evidentiary privilege following the partial birth abortion cases

In February 2004, privacy concerns captured the public's attention when the United States government, the defendant in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, sought to subpoena the medical records of patients receiving intact dilation and extraction (also known as "partial birth") abortions in six different hospitals and six Planned Parenthood centers across the country. Three different federal court cases explored the enforceability of the subpoenas. This Note explores the rationales used by the three courts in examining the privacy interests involved. It then suggests some possible solutions for systematically protecting medical information: a legal solution; a technological solution; and a combination of both. The legal solution involves creating a federal physician-patient privilege, similar to that enforced in many states and parallel to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. The technological solution requires the complicity of multiple jurisdictions to verify the necessity of revealing medical information. Taken together, these solutions can assist the government in protecting its citizens by imposing more checks on itself.     

Life underWainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification

The current standard for determining juror qualification in cases in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty was formulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1985 inWainwright v. Witt. This standard differs importantly from its predecessor, and requires that prospective jurors be dismissed if their views would prevent or substantially impair their ability to perform their functions as jurors. We assessed respondents according to the criteria imposed byWitt. We also measured independently prospective juror's abilities to perform the various specific tasks of a capital juror and their disposition to impose the death penalty automatically upon defendants convicted of murder punishable by death. Data from 148 respondents, selected randomly from juries on previously tried felony cases, indicated that 28.2% of those includable by theWitt standard would automatically impose the death penalty. Considering all respondents who would be erroneously included or excluded, a total of 36% of the sample showed inconsistencies with theWitt criterion. These findings are discussed in terms of jurors' difficulties in anticipating their roles as capital jurors.