Rethinking the admissibility of medical treatises as evidence.

This Article examines the issues and questions which underlie the debate over the admission of "medical treatises" into evidence. The admissibility of this type of evidence is at issue most often in litigation involving complex medico-legal issues. This article outlines the evidentiary basis for admission of medical treatises and discusses the quality of medical treatises in an effort to determine what value to the fact-finder these treatises actually hold. The authors contend that there is an inherent untrustworthiness associated with medical treatises, but do not go so far as to suggest that medical treatises should never be admitted. The Article concludes that there is a need for greater caution in determining admissibility and recommends safeguards to better guarantee trustworthiness and reliability.     

Selective pregnancy reduction: medical attitudes, legal implications, and a viable alternative

"Selective pregnancy reduction" is a medical procedure used to reduce a multiple pregnancy, often a multiple pregnancy induced by in vitro fertilization or drug therapy. In such instances, healthy embryos are sacrificed in order to maximize the chances of survival of the remaining embryos or to allow the mother to choose the number of babies she wishes to deliver. Physicians appear to rely on Roe v. Wade in assuming the legality of the procedure, although such an assumption may be erroneous. Rather than continue to implant an excessive number of pre-embryos, the American Medical Association and the Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology should adopt guidelines similar to those established by the Voluntary Licensing Authority in London, which limit the number to be inserted to a maximum of three. Careful ultrasound monitoring could ensure that no more than three embryos implant when fertility drugs are used. Such practices would help physicians avoid the many moral, ethical, legal, and philosophical problems caused by selective pregnancy reduction.     

Child witnesses and the confrontation clause

InMaryland v. Craig, the United States Supreme Court relied heavily on a brief prepared by a committee of the American Psychology-Law Society on behalf of the American Psychological Association (APA). The APA brief concluded that sexually abused children may be particularly vulnerable to distress in the legal process, especially when forced to confront the defendant face to face, and that such acute distress may be inconsistent with the state's interests in promotion of reliable testimony and child welfare. APA also argued that psychological theory and research provide foundations for individualized determination of the need for measures to protect children from face-to-face confrontation. *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** AFE06051 00002     

Employment and urban growth; an application of Czamanski's model to the Mexican case

The author applies the 1964 model developed by Stanislaw Czamanski, based on theories of urban growth and industrial localization, to the analysis of urban growth in Mexico. "The advantages of this model in its application as a support instrument in the process of urban planning when the information available is incomplete are...discussed...." Census data for 44 cities in Mexico are used. (SUMMARY IN ENG)