The good, the bad, and the ugly: how the due process clause may limit comprehensive health care reform

This article examines atopic which has receivedlittle attention from the media or other scholarly publications: The due process concerns that arise when engaging in comprehensive federal health care reform and regulation. First, the article provides a background discussion detailing the factors necessitating health care reform in the United States. Second, it analyzes whether a constitutionally protected right to make personal health care decisions exists under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments' Due Process Clauses. Finally, the article analyzes the susceptibility of government-sponsored health care-specifically proposals which include a public option-to due process challenges and makes suggestions to avoid any potential fundamental rights violations.     

LESSENING THE STING OF ASFA: THE REHABILITATION‐RELAPSE DILEMMA BROUGHT ABOUT BY DRUG ADDICTION AND TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) as a response to children waiting in foster homes for years without permanent placement. In addressing the problem of permanency, however, Congress set a strict limit on how long a child could be in foster care (15 out of the most recent 22 months) before a state must either commence a proceeding to terminate parental rights or else lose valuable federal funding. Due to health care funding schemes and quality of treatment, this requirement, in particular, negatively impacts parents currently in drug rehabilitation whose parental rights may be permanently terminated before a realistic chance to recover is permitted. Although ASFA requires that states make “reasonable efforts” to keep families united, it does not define “reasonable efforts,” leaving parental rights and family unity subject to a chaotic interpretation of this requirement from state to state. “Reasonable efforts” should be interpreted to take into account current drug addiction and recovery research and drug court programs should be used to facilitate this goal. Research has shown that focusing on adequate treatment saves states money and improves the lives of children and their families, reducing the need for reliance on termination of parental rights.     

Awareness of Novel Drug Legality in a Young Adult Population

In recent years, use of substances commonly referred to as ‘legal highs’ has become a significant concern to policy makers and public health officials. Though legislation banning the use and possession of these novel and synthetic drugs often follows the initial media attention and public outcry, potential users may often be unaware of the legislation. A survey including self-reported drug use and perceptions of the legality of various psychoactive substances was administered to 2,346 students in randomly selected classes at a large public university to determine what portion accurately knew four types of novel drugs were locally illegal. Results indicated that numerous potential and current users incorrectly believed that the former ‘legal highs’ remained unrestricted. This sample did include a number of novel drug users; lifetime use of at least one novel drug was reported by 17.1 %, many of which reported using multiple types of novel drugs. Approximately one-third of the overall sample inaccurately believed that Salvia divinorum (34.7 %), K2/Spice (36.5 %), and Mr. Miyagi/Pot-pourri (32.1 %) were legal in the state and over half (50.3 %) inaccurately believed ‘bath salts’ (synthetic cathinones, MDPV, and other synthetic stimulants) remained legal. As these misperceptions have the potential to influence substance use decisions, they may need to be corrected through educational campaigns as widespread as the preceding media coverage that labeled the drug as ‘legal highs.’ Results also indicated that Blacks and previous users of the substances were more likely to hold inaccurate legal beliefs.