Neck and scleral hemorrhage in drowning

The determination of the cause and manner of death for a body recovered from the water can be difficult because of a lack of autopsy findings specific for drowning. This case report describes a 30-year-old man found submerged at the bottom of a hotel pool. An autopsy revealed scleral hemorrhages and fascial hemorrhages of multiple muscles of the anterior and posterior neck bilaterally. No evidence of traumatic injury was on the surface of the body. An investigation by law enforcement found no evidence of foul play. The occurrence of petechial and neck hemorrhage in a body recovered from the water is controversial, and a review of this literature will be given. We suggest that fascial hemorrhages of the muscles of the neck, as well as cephalic hemorrhages, can be explained by drowning-related elevated central venous pressure that is communicated to the head through the valveless veins of the neck.     

What’s Inside and Outside the Law?

In this article I take up a conceptual question: What is the distinction between ‘the law’ and the behavior the law regulates, or, as I formulate it, the distinction between what is ‘inside’ the law and what is ‘outside’ it? That conceptual question is in play in (at least) three different doctrinal domains: the constitutional law doctrines regarding the limits on the delegation of legislative powers; the criminal law doctrines regarding mistakes of law; and the constitutional rights doctrines that turn on the distinction between state action and the acts of non-state actors. I argue that legal doctrines should turn solely on normative considerations and should not turn on answers to conceptual questions. However, the doctrines I discuss appear to turn on the conceptual question regarding what is ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ the law. I show how each of these doctrinal areas appears to raise this conceptual issue, and I explain how the doctrines might or might not escape being held hostage to conceptual controversy.     

Beratungs- und Warnpflichten des Versicherers bzw Agenten im Hinblick auf eine neue Rechtslage während eines laufenden Haftpflichtverhältnisses

Eine nebenvertragliche, dem Vertragsabschluss nachfolgende Beratungs- und Warnpflicht des (Haftpflicht-) Versicherers ist zumindest dann zu bejahen, wenn der Fall durch folgende Umst?nde gekennzeichnet ist: Eine neue Rsp, die dem Versicherer – dem auch der Wunsch des Versicherten nach umfassendem Versicherungsschutz bekannt war – wohl nicht entgangen sein kann, führt zu existenzbedrohenden Berufsrisiken einer bestimmten, überschaubaren Gruppe von nach denselben Bedingungen Versicherten (hier: Gyn?kologen). Geht es um die Verfehlung eines für eine solche Gruppe von Versicherungsnehmern typischen Deckungsbedürfnisses (also die Absicherung ihrer besonderen Berufsrisiken [hier: Haftung aus "wrongful birth"]), kann daher schon die (weitere) Kenntnis des Versicherers, dass der Versicherungsnehmer dieser Gruppe angeh?rt und umfassenden Versicherungsschutz anstrebt, eine solche Verpflichtung ausl?sen.     

Variable adverse effects in subjects after ingestion of equal doses of Argyreia nervosa seeds

As the new drug Spice hit the market in 2006 and was a hot topic in the media, the general issue of legal highs has been brought to the attention of a large number of (young) people. One of these so called legal highs are the seeds of Argyreia nervosa, also known as Hawaiian Baby Woodrose, which contains the psychotropic alkaloid lysergic acid amide (LSA). A study was designed to assess how driving ability is affected by Argyreia nervosa. However, the study could not be continued due to severe adverse effects in 3 of 4 subjects, such as cardiovascular dysregulation in two and a psychosis like state in one subject. All of the participants recovered completely within 9h after ingestion. Despite body normalized doses interindividually highly differing reactions in type and intensity were observed. Furthermore, fluctuating alkaloid contents in seeds and multi-drug intoxications make the use of this legal high far more dangerous than commonly believed.     

The Complexities of Land Reparations

The question whether unjust dispossessions of land perpetrated on whole peoples in the past should be corrected by restitution in kind, that is, granting reparations in the form of returning land to the dispossessed former owners or their present‐day successors, is substantially more complex than the questions posed by other forms of reparations. I argue that the complexities involved in all the situations where claims for land reparations are made to correct historic injustices give us good reasons to be hesitant about granting such claims. At the same time, we should not dismiss such claims out of hand. Reparations that take a form other than restitution of dispossessed land may be both necessary and sufficient to establish a public marker of acknowledgment.