Pitfalls in state-authorized treatment of minors

Recently a federal court in Georgia ruled that several physicians and several state officials could be sued for state-authorized treatment of a minor over his father's objection. State authorization protects providers only if it is properly obtained and the authorizing official has the power to grant the authorization in the existing circumstances.     

Euthanasia: a challenge for the forensic toxicologist

People die daily in the hospital. Mostly, they die because their illnesses were no longer treatable (natural death). Unfortunately, some people die an unnatural death, in particular, as the result of euthanasia. In contrast to the situation in most countries, in the Netherlands euthanasia is accepted by the courts under strict conditions. It can be very difficult for the legal authorities to establish whether a person has died from natural causes or from suicide, euthanasia, or murder. In addition to the pathologist and the lawyer, the toxicologist also has a number of problems in showing whether euthanasia has been carried out. These can consist of the following analytical problems: (a) interactions--the patients involved have frequently been receiving a large number of toxic and nontoxic drugs simultaneously; (b) identification--not all drugs administered are included in general screening procedures; (c) metabolites--a large number of metabolites may have accumulated toward the end of a long therapeutic regimen; and (d) determination--determination of quaternary muscle relaxants and their various metabolites, as well as other drugs, can be problematic. There are also toxicokinetic problems; because of poor kidney and liver function, low serum albumen, general malaise, and interactions between these factors and other drugs, the kinetics of a given drug can differ from normal. This makes it all the more difficult to determine whether the patient died from an accumulation of medication or from a so-called "euthanetic" drug mixture.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Technology-transfer strategies of DOE's conservation programs

This paper examines the process by which R&D results funded by the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy (CE) of the US Department of Energy (DOE) have generated commercial applications. It looks at examples of technology-transfer procedures and activitees across three of CE's component offices that correspond to the major energy end-use sectors: transportation, buildings, and industry. On the surface, the conservation programs would appear to have little strategic consistency and, therefore, lack the clear leadership many seek in a technology-transfer program. However, as an alternative to strategic consistency, one may tailor the technology-transfer approach of each program to its unique circumstances. This paper presents case studies of such tailoring, in which the diversity of approaches mirrors the complexity of the energy end-use markets and the private-public interests that must be negotiated to successfully commercialize energy-saving innovations. The paper discusses the lessons learned about the conditions requiring adaptive design and the structures and practices that have been proven effective.