关节内注射透明质酸钠联合健骨逐瘀汤加减外敷治疗膝骨性关节炎50例

目的 观察中药外敷结合关节内注射治疗膝骨性关节炎（knee osteoarthritis,KOA）的临床疗效。方法 将96例KOA患者随机分为治疗组（50例）和对照组（46例）。对照组患者膝关节腔内注射25 mg透明质酸钠注射液治疗,并予等速肌力基础康复训练;治疗组在对照组基础上加用健骨逐瘀汤封包泡煎外敷。每1周为1个疗程,共治疗5个疗程。观察治疗前后美国特种外科医院（Hospial for Special Surgery, HSS）膝关节功能评分和临床疗效。结果 与治疗前比较,治疗组患者HSS各条目评分明显增加（P<0.05）,对照组患者膝关节评分除肌力、稳定性2个条目无显著改善外,其余条目评分均有显著增加（P＜0.05）;两组治疗后各条目评分差值比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。两组临床疗效分布比较,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 关节内注射联合健骨逐瘀汤加减外敷对于KOA具有止痛、改善膝关节功能和减轻临床症状的作用。     

论行政执法外部监督中正式监督机关的确立

在检察机关、监察机关的参与之下,行政执法外部监督的力量越来越充足,但这些主体皆为非正式行政执法监督机关,监督活动缺乏统筹安排,难以形成稳定可靠的监督秩序,因而需要确立正式的外部监督机关,发挥一定的牵引作用。检察机关因法律监督对象的广泛性,具备将监督对象拓展至行政机关的可行性,因其在法律实施中开展合法性监督的专业优势,具备将其机关职能拓展至行政执法监督的适当性,所以比监察机关更适于成为正式的行政执法监督机关,这也是检察机关法律监督对现行国家行政监督体系的补强优化。在权力配置上,检察机关需要配以调查权、合法性评议权和程序性处置权,同时要保持监督权行使的限度,避免脱离行政执法合法性监督的焦点,尊重行政执法的独立自主,并与其他国家机关分工协作、形成监督合力。     

Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer‐based comparisons

Forensic firearm examination provides the court of law with information about the source of fired cartridge cases. We assessed the validity of source decisions of a computer‐based method and of 73 firearm examiners who compared breechface and firing pin impressions of 48 comparison sets. We also compared the computer‐based method's comparison scores with the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments and assessed the validity of the latter. The true‐positive rate (sensitivity) and true‐negative rate (specificity) of the computer‐based method (for the comparison of both the breechface and firing pin impressions) were 94.4% and at least 91.7%, respectively. For the examiners, the true‐positive rate was at least 95.3% and the true‐negative rate was at least 86.2%. The validity of the source decisions improved when the evaluations of breechface and firing pin impressions were combined and for the examiners also when the perceived difficulty of the comparison decreased. The examiners were reluctant to provide source decisions for "difficult" comparisons even though their source decisions were mostly correct. The correlation between the computer‐based method's comparison scores and the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments was low for the same‐source comparisons to negligible for the different‐source comparisons. Combining the outcomes of computer‐based methods with the judgments of examiners could increase the validity of firearm examinations. The examiners' numerical degree‐of‐support judgments for their source decisions were not well‐calibrated and showed clear signs of overconfidence. We suggest studying the merits of performance feedback to calibrate these judgments.     

诱惑侦查的合法性及其证明

在司法实践中,诱惑侦查的合法性是一个十分突出的问题。借鉴国外的理论与实践,我国应当以诱惑侦查的基本分类来界定其合法性。同时,为了便于评判、证明诱惑侦查的合法性,我国还应当确立合法性诱惑侦查的具体标准和诱惑侦查人员出庭作证制度。     

限定刑事责任能力评定量表的编制

目的编制能对限定责任能力进行客观分级的评定工具。方法结合国内外有关的鉴定理论与实践报道,参考国内外的类似评定工具编制出《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》(DCRRS);并对该量表进行回顾性测试,分析其信度和效度。结果《限定刑事责任能力评定量表》具有较好的内部一致性和稳定性、结构合理,其界限值所划分的不同法定能力等级与专家鉴定间也高度一致。结论DCRRS对于客观地对限定责任能力进行分级具有参考价值。     

民事行为有效推定规则的构造及其运用——我国民事行为效力立法模式的检讨与重构

我国《民法通则》一方面以民事法律行为要件的形式概括规定了民事行为的有效要件,另一方面又列举规定了民事行为无效、可变更可撤销的具体情形的立法模式存在严重的逻辑空白。这种立法模式有违意思自治,也与各国立法的普遍选择相悖。民事行为有效具有先验性,是不能被“证实”而只能被“证伪”的,立法不应从正面规定民事行为的有效要件。民事行为一经成立即应推定为有效,法律另有规定或当事人另有约定的除外。     

Differentiation between drug use and environmental contamination when testing for drugs in hair

The differentiation between systemic exposure and external contamination for certain drug groups has been frequently referred to as one of the limitations of in drug testing in hair. When hair samples are used, three steps are usually employed in order to minimise the possibility of external contamination causing a misinterpretation. The first consists of decontaminating hair samples by washing the hair before analysis, the second is the detection of the relevant metabolites in the hair samples and the third is the use of cut-off levels. Difficulty in the interpretation arises when metabolites are not detected either due to external contamination of the hair or low doses of the drugs used. A wash protocol needs to be practical and ideally remove any drug deposited on the external portion of the hair.     

论法学研究的两种视角——兼评“法教义学和社科法学”逻辑之非

法学有两种观察或研究视角,即内部视角和外部视角。简言之,前者是规范(制度)事实视角,后者是社会(事实)视角。因之,法学也可两分为内部视角的法学和外部视角的法学。前者以法律规范为前提和纽带的制度事实为研究对象,以规范分析为基本方法,并强调规范中心和规范决定论;后者则以法律规范与其它社会事实之间的关系为研究对象,并运用其他社会科学,如经济学、政治学、社会学、人类学等的方法作为观察和研究法律现象及运作规律的具体方法。它强调社会(事实)中心和社会决定论。法学(尤其法教义学)是社会"科学"的重要一支,与社会科学之间是种属关系,因之,法教义学与所谓"社科法学"之间,在逻辑上不能以并列关系对待。与其说"法教义学与(和)社科法学",不如说内部视角的法学与(和)外部视角的法学。     

分析法学视角下的法律行为“合法性”

法律行为合法性难题经久不衰。依据规范分析法学,词语意义的探究以其正确的使用范围为基础,有效、无效乃是私法评价法律行为的特定词语,当用合法与违法的术语来评价法律行为时,虽不能揭示出法律行为的具体效果,但却为公法规范进入民法自治领域提供了渠道。这两套用语体系存在的基础在于公法、私法的区分。公法与私法的表达方法尽管不同,但其内在价值秩序应当是统一的,其落脚点都是人,法律爱每一个人。     

原则理论与法概念争议

法理学中法概念之争的中心议题在于法律和道德在概念上是否存在必然联系,或者说法律效力和道德正确性之间是否存在必然联系。为了证立联系命题,阿列克西在其早先的原则理论的基础上提出了原则论据,后者包括安置命题、道德命题与正确性命题。在逐一检讨了这三个命题的恰当性以及其与联系命题间的关联度后可以认为,原则论据无法用来证立联系命题。但这并不表示联系命题就必然失败,因为原则理论可以别的方式来证明它。法概念的争议是有关法律效力判准的争议,最终是政治哲学上的争议。