Webster and women's equality

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the Women's Legal Defense Fund (WLDF) co-authored an "amicus curiae" brief in "Webster." The brief was written for 77 organizations who believe in equality of women. The brief said that constitutional protection of a woman's right to choose is guaranteed by the right to privacy. The brief said that if abortions were illegal, women would not be able to take place in society equally with men. Liberty would be taken away from women. If the state interferes with abortion, the principle of bodily integrity is violated. In "Winston v. Lee," the Supreme Court found that the state could not compel a criminal to undergo an invasive surgical procedure to retrieve a bullet necessary for the state to prosecute with. 1 in 4 women have a cesarean section, which requires a larger incision in the abdomen, and has many risks. Bearing and raising children often puts a damper on women's employment opportunities. Therefore, if the Supreme Court denied women the right to bear children when and where they wanted, women would not have the right to plan their futures. If the Supreme Court were to agree that "interest in potential life outweighs" a woman's tight to procreate autonomously, states could declare all abortions illegal, investigate them to see if they were induced on purpose, and murder women who induced them. Contraceptive devices could be declared illegal. Laws could be used to force women to submit to cesarean sections and other fetal surgery. Pre-viability abortion restrictions should be rejected because they have old-fashioned notions of women's role in society. They reinforce stereotypes. Missouri's law stresses aiding "potential," rather than actual life.     

Cities and oil. Historical and prospective aspects of the urban population of Venezuela

The authors present a historical overview of urbanization in Venezuela. The impact of the oil economy on population change and spatial distribution is emphasized. A typology of cities based on socioeconomic function and on a demographic classification of urban centers is devised. Future trends in urbanization are also considered. (SUMMARY IN ENG)     

The patient who refuses medical treatment: a dilemma for hospitals and physicians

This article reviews recent case and statutory law concerning patients who refuse medical treatment. Among the special cases considered are: the competent adult patient who refuses treatment on religious or privacy grounds; the incompetent patient whose own wishes were never expressed, but whose family refuses treatment; the incompetent patient who expressed the wish not to be treated before becoming incompetent; and parents who refuse treatment on behalf of their child. It is pointed out that recent court decisions have blurred the distinctions between "extraordinary" care and "ordinary" care and between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Reference is made to the recent trend toward allowing the family of an incompetent patient to assert the patient's rights without court intervention either in the form of direct court order or through guardianship proceedings. Finally, the implications of these legal developments for health care institutions are discussed. A protocol pertaining to incompetent patients is proposed. Health care institutions are encouraged to develop formal policies for dealing with patients who refuse treatment, and to work with their professional associations in lobbying for legislation which will clarify the law in this area.     

The "utility" principle within the scope of forensic determination of blood kinship using serostatistics

A "realistic" prior probability is always based on case experience (Akten-a-priori). In serological opinions pertaining to parentage, the realistic prior probability is only one piece of information in the whole body of evidence before the judge and does not have any special significance per se. There is no such thing as a "neutral" prior probability. It either implies "ignorance," in which case it cannot be "information," or it must be taken in connection with the utility principle, in which case it is not a "probability." The utility principle is defined in law and cannot be expressed in figures. The utility principle takes effect only when the judge reaches a decision (on the basis of all the evidence before him). It determines the relative importance of the participant's objects of legal protection which are at issue in the case. The expert is bound to apply a neutral utility component, i.e., in a two-hypothesis case (the normal situation) the significance of both the null and the counter hypothesis must carry the same weight. A null and/or a counter hypothesis can combine several single hypotheses; the mean value of their frequencies is taken. As a rule, one should avoid using a "prior case probability" ("Akten-a-priori") when calculating a W value. An "expectation of error" should be as realistic as possible and hence be obtained using a "prior case probability."