Canadian court upholds arbitration clause in patent licence dispute

A Canadian court has held that a dispute relating to warrantiesin a patent licence agreement regarding inventorship and ownershipof the invention should be resolved by arbitration, pursuantto the arbitration clause in the agreement.     

A potentially catastrophic outcome from a false-positive urinary drug screen immunoassay

Background: Urinary drug screens are routinely administered for patients returning from leave from forensic psychiatric wards, and are required to be negative for patients to continue to use their allocated leave. Case: A 35-year-old woman took leave from her low-secure psychiatric unit. On return, her urine screened positively for 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). She strongly denied she had taken it; however, all her leave was cancelled. Her clinical state greatly deteriorated, and she attempted to hang herself the following day. After stabilisation of the patient and continued denial of taking MDMA, the urine was sent for toxicology analysis. In the weeks that followed, she started self-harming and deteriorated to the point of needing electroconvulsive therapy. The toxicological report came back as a false-positive due to recently started Mebeverine. Conclusion: Clinicians must be mindful that urinary drug screens are not diagnostic, but also that not being believed can be devastating, especially for long-stay forensic inpatients.     

The construction of allegedly abused children’s narratives in Scottish criminal courts

This study investigated lawyers’ use of social narratives surrounding child sexual abuse when questioning 66 5- to 17-year-old alleged victims in Scottish criminal courts using a mixed-methods approach. Thematic analysis found that the use of beliefs and stereotypes varied depending upon the lawyers’ role (defense/prosecution), children’s age, and the alleged victim-defendant relationship. These findings were investigated further using narrative analysis, which showed that, with increasing age and decreasing familiarity with defendants, narratives increasingly focused on the characteristics and actions of the victims rather than the defendants. Older children contributed more to narratives than younger children, but their contributions were only incorporated into the prosecutors’ narratives. Defense lawyers adopted more victim-blaming tactics as the narratives developed. Findings suggest that the criminal justice system, practitioners, and researchers must do more to recognize and guard against the reinforcement of stereotypes that may influence public rhetoric and jury decision-making.     

Social Justice and Moral Reasoning: An Empirical Integration of Two Paradigms in Psychological Research

Distributive and procedural justice are of central importance to past and current theories of the psychology of moral development and the social psychology of justice. In order to explicate the relationships among theories, participants responded to both a measure of moral reasoning and a measure of 15 various justice criteria. Analyses showed that each schema of moral reasoning was significantly predicted by different concerns about social justice. Furthermore, individuals' judgments about justice were best represented by four factors, offering a broader definition of justice in relation to moral schemas. The findings were consistent with Kohlbergian theory; moral reasoning appears to proceed from concerns about self-interest to distributive fairness to procedural justice.     

Toleration without Liberal Foundations

The author's aim is to find principles grounding and limiting toleration that are sufficiently sensitive to the variety of distinct settings in which concrete problems arise, and to produce principles which can appeal both to liberals and to non-liberals. The range of settings is covered by fixing the nature of three distinct species of the genus right to toleration. Once these rights are analysed, an attempt is made to see what agreement about them can be reached by liberals and non-liberals if they have a common commitment to democracy. A definition of democracy is produced that, it is argued, liberals and non-liberals would have difficulty rejecting. It is then explored as a definition that has definite consequences over the three rights to toleration, putting the opponents before a choice: either to accept their preferred content for the right to toleration, or to support a democratic policy.