Beyond the World Food Summit

While most speakers at the 1996 World Food Summit expressed concern about the injustice that forces more than 800 million people worldwide to live with hunger, some sought solutions through economic and social development while others called for a more liberal marketplace. Among world leaders, only Fidel Castro raised issues and challenges that addressed some of the underlying causes of malnutrition. The Plan of Action that grew out of the Summit has only one measurable commitment, which is to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015. The other six commitments, while diluted, contain important objectives even though they give little emphasis to the underlying causes of poverty or hunger. The Summit process, however, did contribute to the fact that food-related issues are now placed higher on the world agenda because many of these issue were raised by civil service organizations (CSOs) at the Summit's parallel NGO (nongovernmental organization) forum. In fact, one of the most positive outcomes of the Summit may prove to be the increased effectiveness of the CSOs as a result of the creation of improved networks in preparation for the Summit. The CSOs contributed examples of how food security could be improved, published an active site on the World Wide Web, and challenged the statements of governments. In addition to raising trade issues, CSOs also lobbied for sustainable agriculture and agricultural biodiversity. In fact, CSOs may have to set a new action agenda for the formal sector to encourage development of new institutions and new global forums that give NGOs a place at the table.     

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.     

The Cairo Stories: Some Reflections on Conflict Resolution in Egypt

The author relates three cases of conflict which he has observed in Cairo and recognizes patterns that cut across each of these stories. The stories shed light on how people in Egypt approach and deal with conflict; in addition, they may help readers understand conflict in their home culture as well as be instructive on how to listen to conflict in different cultures. Six general themes in the way Egyptians approach or handle conflict are identified, and each of these themes is analyzed.     

EEOC guidance on psychiatric disabilities: many problems, few workable solutions

The EEOC recently issued "Enforcement Guidance" on psychiatric disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although the Guidance provides clarification of a few issues involving mental disabilities under the ADA, in most respects the Guidance is problematic. For example, the Guidance suggests that the inability to get along with a supervisor or coworkers may constitute a disability under the ADA, that an employer may have to "accommodate" a disabled employee's misconduct, that an employer cannot require an employee to follow doctor's orders as a condition of employment, and that an employer may be obligated to modify work rules and procedures to accommodate a mentally disabled employee but is prohibited from explaining to coworkers why it is making such modifications. As the EEOC's Guidance exceeds or conflicts with the ADA in some respects and is largely unworkable in many respects, it remains to be seen how many courts will actually follow it.     

Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.