The judicial role in life-sustaining medical treatment decisions.

Although there has been speculation regarding the pervasiveness and nature of judicial decisions regarding life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT), no attempt has been made to empirically assess their prevalence or the issues they address. An exploratory study utilizing a mail survey of a nationwide random sample (N = 905) of state trial court judges was conducted to provide initial information regarding this decision-making process. Twenty-two percent of the responding judges had heard at least one LSMT case, and judicial review did not appear endemic to particular states. The number of judges hearing LSMT cases dropped from 1975 to 1981 but has increased since then. Three major issues predominate: patient competency, appointment of a surrogate decisionmaker, and resolution of the ultimate issue of forgoing LSMT. Relatively few cases either contested a prior directive's validity or involved imposing sanctions for instituting or forgoing LSMT. Although subject to different interpretations, the results suggest the courts are having a significant impact on certain aspects of the LSMT decision-making process. However, the infrequency with which any one judge is called upon to make an LSMT decision causes concern about the judiciary's ability to respond in a timely and appropriate manner. With their potential for a profound effect on the actions of health care providers, greater attention to this decision-making process is warranted.     

A unique case of congenital bilateral absence of parietal bones in a neonate

The remains of an unidentified female neonate were discovered in a field in central Missouri. Examination revealed bilateral absence of the parietal bones. A search of the literature describing similar defects suggests that the present case represents a unique condition, described here for the first time.     

DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFE‐COURSE CRIMINOLOGY: KEY THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL ISSUES‐THE 2002 SUTHERLAND AWARD ADDRESS*

The main aim of this paper is to advance knowledge and (especially) theories about developmental and life‐course criminology (DLC). First, I review the widely accepted DLC findings that all DLC theories have been designed to explain. Second, I review more contentious and unresolved empirical DLC issues that might present challenges to DLC theories. Third, I describe my own DLC theory and specify how it addresses key empirical and theoretical questions. Fourth, I summarize five important DLC theories, by Catalano and Hawkins, Sampson and Laub, Moffitt, LeBlanc, and Thornberry and Krohn. Fifth, I identify differences in assumptions and predictions between my theory and the other five theories. Finally, I recommend a detailed comparison of the key features of all DLC theories, of their answers to key empirical and theoretical questions, and of their predictions regarding key unresolved empirical DLC issues.