For the Love of Darcie: Recognising the Human–Companion Animal Relationship in Housing Law and Policy

This paper identifies the law’s failure to recognise and protect the human–companion animal relationship in the housing arena. The nature of the human–companion animal relationship has striking similarities to human–human relationships in the socially supportive aspects of the relationship such as attachment, nurturance and reliable alliance. This contributes to the social life and sense of well-being of the owner. There is also evidence that the human–companion animal relationship can have physical health benefits such as lowering the risk of death by cardiovascular disease. It is clear that society benefits from the human–companion animal relationship, which many owners perceive as akin to family, in the form of healthier, less isolated people with better social networks. Yet in the key area of housing, the law does nothing to protect or even recognise this relationship. In consequence, every year thousands of tenants in both the public and private sector are faced with ‘no pet’ covenants in their leases and grapple with difficulties such as reduced housing options, higher rents or the traumatic decision to give up their companion animal for rehoming or euthanasia. This is especially prevalent amongst vulnerable people, like the elderly and mentally ill, who are more likely to need to move into supported accommodation. This article examines housing law in countries, such as France and Canada, that prohibit ‘no pet’ covenants in residential leases and provides arguments for the effective formulation and implementation of such law in the UK.     

The effect of a judicial declaration of competence on the perceived credibility of children and defendants

Purpose. Three studies were conducted to determine the effect of a judicial declaration of competence on perceptions of credibility towards a child witness and an adult defendant. Methods. Undergraduates read vignettes about a 5‐ or a 13‐year‐old child witness or an adult involved in either a sexual assault case or a motor vehicle accident case. In the child conditions, the case was either preceded by a declaration of the child's competence to testify (either specific or general declaration) or there was no mention of the competence of the child. Participants then rated the perceived credibility of both the complainant/witness and the defendant. Results. A judicial declaration of competence that was targeted at the particular child sometimes increased the credibility ratings of the child and decreased those of the defendant, sometimes to levels beyond those observed in the adult conditions. These effects on credibility were not replicated when a general declaration of all children's competence was used. In fact, the general declaration sometimes resulted in more positive ratings of the defendant. Conclusions. These results are discussed in the context of recommendations for the use of competence evaluations and declarations of competence in court.     

The role of competition in health care: a Western European perspective

The Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice 2004 report Improving Health Care: A Dose of Competition expresses a clear allegiance to competition as the organizing principle for health care. In Europe, by contrast, the key organizing principle of health care systems is solidarity. Solidarity means that all have access to health care based on medical needs, regardless of ability to pay. This is not to say that competition is not important in Europe, but competition must take place within the context of solidarity. This article critiques the report from a European perspective, describes the role of competition in Europe (focusing in particular on European Union law), and suggests that the United States could learn from the European perspective.     

U.S. policy on health inequities: the interplay of politics and research

What is the relationship between scientific research and government action in addressing health inequalities in the United States? What factors increase the impact of scientific research on public policy? To answer these questions, we focus on racial and ethnic disparities in health status and health care in the United States. We first review the history of the disparities issue to elucidate how the continual and persistent interplay between political action and scientific research drives government policy. We then analyze two recent government-sponsored reports about racial and ethnic disparities to understand the strategic consequences of issue framing. We draw lessons about how disparities research can have a greater impact on public policy.     

Reframing the racial disparities issue for state governments

Although racial and ethnic disparities in health have been on the federal government's agenda since 1985, no policy reforms have significantly reduced disparities. The question arises whether states can effectively address this issue without waiting for solutions from the national government. The purpose of this article is to propose ways of reframing the disparities issue that might give state policy makers more leverage and might strengthen political will to address the issue. I suggest a moral frame based on a concept of distributive justice in which medical care must be distributed according to need. I explain the rationales for such a frame and consider its strategic advantages and disadvantages. In the last section, I suggest some policies based on this framing that are within the power of state legislatures.