Legalization of consensual unions in Mexico

Data examined in this study are from the 1976 Mexican Fertility Survey. The authors review previous findings and compare information from this survey with data from the 1969 PECFAL Survey. They then examine the types of consensual union and factors such as women's age, educational status, occupation, premarital fertility, and rural or urban residence. The focus of the study is on the extent to which consensual unions eventually become legal marriages. The authors also investigate the increasing probability of termination of marriage through divorce or separation, especially in urban areas.     

Practitioner fraud and abuse in medical benefit programs: government regulation and professional white-collar crime

Physicians who defraud and abuse medical benefit programs provide a unique group of lawbreakers for scientific study. They could be considered to epitomize white collar criminals given their exceedingly high socioeconomic status and power as a professional group. Using official reports and documents, as well as interviews with enforcement and program personnel at both state and federal levels, this study examines the problem of physician fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. Major areas relevant to understanding this phenomenon and its control are presented and policy implications of present knowledge in the area are discussed.     

Managing the negotiation agenda

Conclusion The agenda is one of the main structural elements of negotiation, in addition to such questions as site, identification of participants, and elements of timing. Together, they answer the who, what, when, and where questions. As with other aspects of negotiation, the agenda can be used either manipulatively to enhance leverage or to improve the prospects for agreement and the possibilities for mutual gain. In most cases, it will be used both ways, reflecting the nature of negotiation as a mixed-motive situation.Although it can be instrumental to volunteer as a sole source to write the agenda, in most cases it becomes a joint activity to construct a consensual basis for subsequent negotiation. In these situations, agenda-building becomes one of the pre-negotiation activities that set the tone for the relationship (Saunders, 1985). In other situations, the parties may engage in actual negotiation without a formal or written agenda. When this occurs, the risks and uncertainties may be high but the party who appreciates the importance of the informal agenda has a tremendous advantage.Whether one plans it or not, during the course of negotiation the parties will discuss a finite set of issues in some sequence and from a particular perceptual framework. Consciousness of the universality and centrality of the agenda is prerequisite to guiding negotiation to a successful conclusion. William R. Pendergast is Associate Dean at Boston University's Metropolitan College, 755 Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. 02215, where he teaches graduate courses and executive development seminars on negotiation. He is preparing research on power and influence, and on strategic choice in negotiation.     

"False confessions" and identification with the aggressor: another forensic misuse of a psychiatric concept

Some psychiatrists misuse theoretical concepts beyond their generally accepted dimensions in an attempt to support a conclusion favorable to a litigant or defendant. In the case presented, the concept of identification with the aggressor was used in an attempt to eliminate or minimize the effect of a confession and to buttress the claim that the confession itself was false. Quotations from the actual reports and testimony are used to reflect both this tactic and the context in which these issues were pursued, including a rather startling admission by the psychiatrist dealing with the thoroughness of his professional effort. A brief history of "identification with the aggressor" is presented, a history which contrasts with its application to rather routine police questioning. Similarly, skepticism is clearly merited when a psychitrist testifies as to truthfulness or falsity of a statement.