The courts,interest groups,and public opinion about abortion

Public preferences about the availability of abortion under various circumstances have remained fairly stable over time. Yet a standard CBS/New York Times abortion question indicates that a significant shift in opinion occurred during the 1980s, whereby the public became increasingly supportive of legalized abortion as it is now. These very different patterns of public opinion about abortion suggest that the public perceived a shift in the abortion status quo, toward more restricted access, over time, and became more supportive of current abortion policy.A model of support for legalized abortion as it is now is developed that incorporates the influences of court activities and interest-group behavior. The analysis indicates that the public reacted directly to the activities of the courts, becoming more supportive of current abortion policy in response to media coverage of court cases that challenged the abortion status quo and Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Although absolute preferences remained largely unchanged, it appears the public perceived an increasing threat to the status quo and became correspondingly less enamored with further restrictions on the availability of abortion.     

The need to know versus the right to know: privacy of patient medical data in an information-based society

"Whatever, in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret."(1) "Safeguards to privacy in individual health care information are imperative to preserve the health care delivery relationship and the integrity of the patient record."(2) As early as the fourth and fifth centuries B.C., Hippocrates contemplated the importance of medical information to the care and treatment of patients. His oath suggests that privacy of a patient's medical information creates the foundation upon which a patient reposes trust in his or her physician. While defining the earliest version of the physician-patient privilege, the oath does not envision the extent of modern day access to healthcare information. A patient's relationship with the modern healthcare delivery system often includes a team of physicians, nurses, and other clinical support personnel. This relationship extends beyond direct caregivers and may include healthcare administrators, payor organizations, and persons unfamiliar with a patient's identity, such as researchers and public health officials. Accessing a patient's medical information links these participants to the patient's healthcare delivery relationship. The Hippocratic Oath does not contemplate such broad access, nor does it contemplate the emerging privacy crisis resulting from the application of computer technology to medical record storage and retrieval. The combination of broad access, individual privacy rights, and computer technology requires a rethinking of measures designed to protect the realities of the modern medical information society.     

Teaching Negotiation Theory and Skills Over the Internet

Negotiating on-line is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon in the workplace. The medium of the Internet also offers promising, opportunities for negotiation educators to reach out to participants that might otherwise be unable to attend a seminar. The authors used the Internet to teach negotiation theory and skills during a seven-week seminar that was conducted completely over the World Wide Web. This experiment revealed several advantages and difficulties likely to arise in the conduct of distance learning for topics in negotiation. The authors reflect on how they would organize the seminar differently, should they do it again, and offer suggestions for others organizing courses using the Internet.     

Genetic discrimination: Huntington's disease and the Americans with Disabilities Act

This Note discusses the potential for genetic discrimination, current views as to whether genetic conditions will be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the specific issue of whether presymptomatic persons who test positive for Huntington's disease should be classified as persons with a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. In considering whether presymptomatic Huntington's individuals have a disability under the ADA, an analogy is made between Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status. Inter alia, Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status are analogous in that, at the time of diagnosis, victims of both diseases may have no symptoms and may remain healthy for a number of years; but even though the exact time of onset of both diseases is unascertainable, death of both victims within a given range of years is highly likely. Further, both Huntington's disease and HIV are transmitted to offspring at a relatively high rate. Given these similarities, the author argues that Huntington's individuals should be afforded the protections of the ADA for the same reasons that HIV-positive persons are protected.