Duty to warn of genetic harm in breach of patient confidentiality

Harm caused by the failure of health professionals to warn an at-risk genetic relative of her or his risk is genetic harm. Genetic harm should be approached using the usual principles of negligence. When these principles are applied, it is shown that (a) genetic harm is foreseeable; (b) the salient features of vulnerability, the health professional's knowledge of the risk to the genetic relative and the determinancy of the affected class and individual result in a duty of care being owed to the genetic relative; (c) the standard of care required to fulfil the duty to warn should be the expectations of a reasonable person in the position of the relative; and (d) causation is satisfied as the harm is caused by the failure of intervention of the health professional. Legislation enacted subsequent to the Report of the Commonwealth of Australia, Panel of Eminent Persons (Chair D Ipp), Review of the Law of Negligence Report (2002) and relevant to a duty to warn of genetic harm is considered. The modes of regulation and penalties for breach of any future duty to warn of genetic harm are considered.     

Introduction: Reflections on Two Decades of Congressional Budgeting

Even casual observers of federal policy making cannot help but notice the increasing preeminence of the Congressional budget process. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which created this process, brought forth profound changes in budgeting practices, both within Congress and between Congress and the president. In addition, the last decade has seen numerous attempts to use the process for deficit control. The goal of this special symposium is how congressional procedures-adapted over time-have affected the federal budgeting process. Each article examines the original purpose of the 1974 statute and analyzes the statute's impact over more than two decades.     

Next Step: State Funding for the Parties?

The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 marked the most comprehensive and radical overhaul of British party finance for over 100 years. It instituted reforms in many areas, with the notable exception of the comprehensive extension of state funding for political parties. However, despite the radicalism of the Act, questions have already arisen as to whether further state funding should occur. This article argues that in order to examine the case for more comprehensive state funding, policy–makers need to look beyond the current calls and make a decision by evaluating several criteria on the basis of empirical evidence rather than assumptions. First, however, it is worth outlining the stage we are at presently by summarising the new Act, looking at its impact to date and examining the claims made in recent episodes which have led to calls for more comprehensive state funding of political parties.     

An Evaluation of the Recent Move to Centralize the Finance of Public Schools in Michigan

This article examines Michigan's 1994–95 shift from its system of K–12 public education being funded largely by local property taxes, to it being funded predominately by statewide revenue sources. We briefly describe events that led up to the adoption of Michigan's school finance reform and then go into some detail about the tax and revenue-sharing specifics. Since the structure of Michigan's school finance reform is complex, somewhat unique, and likely to be considered as a model for other states to duplicate, this examination will assist policy analysts and policymakers throughout the United States. Other states considering similar reforms will benefit from the simulations we provide with regard to the likely long-run results of Michigan's school finance reform.