Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

Multiple deaths from argon contamination of hospital oxygen supply

During the course of routine hospital surgical procedures, three patients lapsed into hypoxic cyanosis. Two expired immediately, another after four days of coma. Investigation of the hospital's central liquid oxygen tank revealed that it had been refilled recently and was labelled both "oxygen" and "argon." Mass spectrometric analysis of gas sampled from the questioned tank revealed a predominance of argon. A discussion of the sampling technique, method of analysis, role of the criminalist, and causes of this accident is presented.     

Legislative and educational alternatives to a judicial remedy for the transfer trauma dilemma

Transfer trauma is alleged to be an increase in morbidity and mortality in institutionally relocated chronically ill elderly. Efforts by the legal profession to persuade courts that transfer trauma should be a legally recognized phenomenon invoking judicial protections against transfer (the "transfer trauma argument") have been unproductive. In O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, Inc., the United States Supreme Court denied standing to elderly persons claiming a property interest in remaining in alleged substandard facilities. The Court rejected the argument that the possibility of transfer trauma constituted a deprivation of life or liberty that would have required due process protections of notice and hearing. Despite the Court's preclusion of transfer trauma litigation in a constitutional context and the general unwillingness of lower courts to recognize the phenomenon, attorneys continue to burden the judicial system with frivolous transfer trauma arguments. The unfruitful pursuit of a judicial remedy for the ethical and social problems that arise with relocation of the elderly continues, in part, because of a misguided belief that this distressing social phenomenon is best remedied by the courts. Judicial unwillingness to recognize the transfer trauma argument, however, does not preclude legislative consideration of the humanitarian issues concerning the institutional relocation of elderly persons. This Article examines gerontological research in order to understand the judicial rejection of the transfer trauma argument and argues in support of legislative and educational solutions for the ethical and social problems attending transfer.     

Characteristics of adolescent incest sexual perpetrators: Preliminary findings

Adolescent incest sexual perpetrators seen at an out-patient clinic were interviewed regarding demographic characteristics and occurrence of deviant and nondeviant sexual behaviors. Results indicate that subjects (1) committed more sexual crimes than they had been arrested for, (2) reported a very early onset of sexual behavior, (3) had additional DSM-III psychiatric disorders, and (4) reported previous sexual victimization. Recommendations for future research are made.     

Therapists' obligations to report their patients' criminal acts

The law governing the obligation of therapists to report their patients' previous criminal acts was reviewed. Most often, discussions of this subject fall under the general category of "misprison of a felony," that is, the presumed general obligation of all citizens to report felonies that come to their attention. Review of federal law revealed that the courts have consistently interpreted the federal misprision statute as requiring active concealment of a crime, not a mere failure to report, in order to convict for the offense. State law is more diverse. Only one state has a general misprison statute labeled as such, and several states have recently repealed such statutes. The strong trend in states without statutes is to reject misprison as a common law crime, because of its incompatibility with modern notions of justice. Most states, however, have limited reporting statutes, such as for child abuse or gunshot wounds, that impose similar obligations. Therapists' reporting of past crimes may be affected by clinical and ethical concerns, as well as by obligations to protect future victims. In almost all jurisdictions, however, the fear of prosecution for failure to report a past crime should not be a factor in deciding on a course of action.     

An unusual shotgun injury pattern produced by an intermediate target

Discharge of a shotgun with a shotgun casing in its muzzle as a "dust cover" produced a pattern of injuries suggestive of combined intermediate- and distant-range wounds.