Rethinking the admissibility of medical treatises as evidence.

This Article examines the issues and questions which underlie the debate over the admission of "medical treatises" into evidence. The admissibility of this type of evidence is at issue most often in litigation involving complex medico-legal issues. This article outlines the evidentiary basis for admission of medical treatises and discusses the quality of medical treatises in an effort to determine what value to the fact-finder these treatises actually hold. The authors contend that there is an inherent untrustworthiness associated with medical treatises, but do not go so far as to suggest that medical treatises should never be admitted. The Article concludes that there is a need for greater caution in determining admissibility and recommends safeguards to better guarantee trustworthiness and reliability.     

Social science and the Courts

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief inMaryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The authors wish to thank James Ogloff, Kathy Roesch, and Claudia Worrell for their comments on an earlier draft     

Medicaid rationing in Oregon: political wolf in a philosopher's sheepskin

Although the details of the proposal have shifted since it was first described, the Oregon Medicaid waiver has had one consistent feature: it will reduce benefits to AFDC mothers and children who are currently covered by Medicaid in that state, in the hopes of increasing coverage for other individuals who are now uninsured. Because of the adverse consequences for the AFDC population, there should be strong evidence supporting the purported benefits of the proposal before proceeding with the waiver. One of the most intriguing aspects of the waiver proposal is the claim that the money currently being spent on AFDC beneficiaries could be redistributed to expand coverage to a substantial number of the uninsured. The concept is that far more people could receive the most valuable services if those now being served gave up their coverage of the least valuable services. Other purported benefits of the waiver include enhanced citizen participation in decisionmaking, cost-savings, and improved payment levels and delivery arrangements. Remarkably, this analysis of the proposal reveals that the waiver is likely to achieve none of its stated objectives, and instead will have adverse consequences not identified by its proponents. What the proposal would do is to insulate politicians from visible responsibility for limiting benefits for AFDC children and adults. Finally, the proposal undermines 25 years of Medicaid as an entitlement program. As such, it would establish as a social ethic the principle that the poor can be relegated to inadequate care. Such an extreme measure is not justified by the fiscal situation in Oregon, which is not extraordinarily poor or overtaxed, and does not have a particularly generous or unusually expensive Medicaid program.     

The emergence of maternal-fetal conflict policies

George Washington University Medical Center's Policy on decisionmaking by pregnant patients is being widely circulated by the ACLU; copies of the Policy can be obtained by calling the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. There is, of course, much disagreement over the details of the Policy; not everyone will agree with its underlying philosophy favoring maternal rights. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a consensus that wherever possible these conflicts should be resolved in accordance with previously adopted policies rather than by the courts on an ad hoc basis. Had the Policy been in place in 1987, the Carder case would probably not have been submitted to a judge in the first place, nor would Angela Carder have been forced to undergo a Caesarean section. All hospitals should consider adopting a maternal-fetal conflict policy, and those that do so should be aware of the George Washington University Medical Center Policy, whether or not they agree with its provisions. Whatever policy each hospital ultimately develops should be integrated with decisionmaking and informed consent policies already in place. The formulation and implementation of such a policy, reflecting the hospital's legal and ethical obligations to its pregnant patients, will go a long way towards preventing unnecessary resort to the courts.     

Last rights. In sickness and in health, more people are taking life's biggest decision away from doctors and into their own hands

When dying is all that awaits them, more and more people are choosing certain death now rather than uncertain life on medical support systems. But the decision seldom comes easy, as a Newsweek reporter discovers during three weeks with the doctors, nurses, patients and families in an intensive-care ward. A best-selling guide to suicide fires debate over when it is right to let life go--and who should make that choice when the patient no longer can.     

Money madness. Are private psychiatric hospitals resorting to kidnapping in their quest for paying patients?

In their zeal for lucrative insurance reimbursement, some private psychiatric hospitals seem to have gone over the edge themselves. A number of these institutions, critics charge, use outright coercion to commit and retain patients. Now some formerly abducted "recruits" are fighting back with lawsuits.