DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Health Law Map - Beta 5.7

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Health Law Map - Beta 5.7 Public Health Law Map - Beta 5.7 I. INTRODUCTION TO PUBLIC HEALTH LAW 1 II. ORGANIZATION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM 6 III. TORT CLAIMS AGAINST PRIVATE PARTIES 20 IV. CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT 57 V. CRIMINAL LAW 97 VI. THE LITIGATION PROCESS 138 VII. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PRIMER 175 VIII. WORKING WITH LAWYERS 190 IX. THE PHYSICIAN–PATIENT RELATIONSHIP 216 X. CONSENT TO MEDICAL TREATMENT 273 XI. MEDICAL PRIVACY 343 XII. MEDICAL RECORDS 362 XIII. TEAM CARE AND MANAGED CARE 381 XIV. PEER REVIEW AND DESELECTION 434 XV. PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNICABLE DISEASE CONTROL 459 XVI. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 497 XVII. FAMILY PLANNING, ADOPTION, AND SURROGACY 513 XVIII. OBSTETRICS 560 XIX. OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE AND DISABILITY LAW 608 XX. INSTITUTIONAL MEDICINE 674 XXI. GLOSSARY 697 Public Health Law Map - Beta 5.7 The Public Health Law Map is an ongoing project to bring public health law information to public health practitioners, their lawyers, and students of public health, and the general public. It is being done as an online resource so that it can be updated and to make as widely available as possible. It is not a substitute for legal advice, and since state law varies, it is not a specific guide for any state. I. Introduction to Public Health Law Public health has become a broad and flexible concept that encompasses both the traditional definition of practices that benefit the health of the community and personal health services, such as hypertension treatment. Legally, however, the basis for traditional public health and personal health services are very different. For example, although the state has broad powers to order vaccination to prevent the spread of a dangerous communicable disease, the state has limited power to require competent adults to undergo medical treatment for personal illness such as hypertension. The core of public health law is coercive action under state authority, the police power. In the best of circumstances, this authority may be needed only to encourage educational efforts. At other times, however, public health authorities must seize property, close businesses, destroy animals, or involuntarily treat or even lock away individuals. Such powers are rooted in earlier times, when the fear of pestilential disease was both powerful and well founded. As communicable diseases such as smallpox, tuberculosis, and polio were brought under control in the 1960s, the public and even some public health experts began to believe that there was no longer a need for coercive public health measures. The terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, followed shortly by anthrax-laden letters sent to public figures, brought bioterrorism to the public's consciousness, reviving ancient fears of pestilence. The sequella of Hurricane Katrina and growing fears of pandemic flu have raised questions about the capabilities of the public health infrastructure and the potential reach of public health laws in an emergency. These fears have forced a rethinking of public health law authority. A. The History of Public Health Authority Sanitary laws were the first public health measures. An early record of these laws is in Leviticus 11:16. The Romans developed the discipline of sanitary engineering— building water works and sewers. The next advance in public health was the quarantine of disease-carrying ships and their passengers, instituted in Eurpope in response to the diseases brought back by the Crusaders. The word quarantine derives from quadraginta, meaning “forty.” It was first used between 1377 and 1403 when Venice and the other chief maritime cities of the Mediterranean adopted and enforced a forty- day detention for all vessels entering their ports. [Bolduan CF, Bolduan NW. Public Health and Hygiene: A Student’s Manual. 3rd, rev. ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 1942.] The English statutory and common law recognized the right of the state to quarantine and limit the movement of plague carriers. Blackstone observed that disobeying quarantine orders merited severe punishments, including death. The American colonies adopted the English laws on the control of diseases. When the Constitution was written, public health power was left to the states, because it was considered fundamental to the state’s police power: It is a well-recognized principle that it is one of the first duties of a state to take all necessary steps for the promotion and protection of the health and comfort of its inhabitants. The preservation of the public health is universally conceded to be one of the duties devolving upon the state as a sovereignty, and whatever reasonably tends to preserve the public health is a subject upon which the legislature, within its police power, may take action. [Application of Halko, 246 Cal.App.2d 553, 54 Cal.Rptr. 661 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Nov 18, 1966)] Soon after the Constitution was ratified, the states were forced to exercise their police power to combat an epidemic of yellow fever that raged in New York and Philadelphia. The flavor of that period was later captured in an argument before the Supreme Court: For ten years prior, the yellow-fever had raged almost annually in the city, and annual laws were passed to resist it. The wit of man was exhausted, but in vain. Never did the pestilence rage more violently than in the summer of 1798. The State was in despair. The rising hopes of the metropolis began to fade. The opinion was gaining ground, that the cause of this annual disease was indigenous, and that all precautions against its importation were useless. But the leading spirits of that day were unwilling to give up the city without a final desperate effort. The havoc in the summer of 1798 is represented as terrific. The whole country was roused. A cordon sanitaire was thrown around the city. Governor Mifflin of Pennsylvania proclaimed a non-intercourse between New York and Philadelphia. [Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 283, 340–341 (1849)] The extreme nature of the actions, including isolating the federal government (sitting in Philadelphia at the time), was considered an appropriate response to the threat of yellow fever. The terrifying nature of these early epidemics predisposed the courts to grant public health authorities a free hand in their attempts to prevent the spread of disease: Every state has acknowledged power to pass, and enforce quarantine, health, and inspection laws, to prevent the introduction of disease, pestilence, or unwholesome provisions; such laws interfere with no powers of Congress or treaty stipulations; they relate to internal police, and are subjects of domestic regulation within each state, over which no authority can be exercised by any power under the Constitution, save by requiring the consent of Congress to the imposition of duties on exports and imports, and their payment into the treasury of the United States. [Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 540, 616 2 (1840)] Few cases have challenged the constitutionality of state actions taken to protect citizens from a communicable disease. The only successful attacks on such exercises of state police power have been based on federal preemption of state laws that restricted interstate commerce or on laws that were mere shams for racial discrimination. Yet even interference with interstate commerce is not always fatal to health regulations. If a state regulation is substantially related to health and safety, the Supreme Court will uphold it. This is true even if the regulation interferes with interstate commerce, such as would result from a cordon sanitaria in which all travel is forbidden. From vaccinations to quarantines, laws enacted to protect society have been upheld even when they force individuals to sacrifice liberty and privacy. B. Legal Standards for Public Health Authority As courts have reviewed the constitutionality of laws that ostensibly protect the public health and safety, they have developed consistent standards for defining an acceptable exercise of public health authority. The courts have allowed substantial restrictions on individual liberty as part of public health laws that seek to prevent future harm rather than to punish past actions. If a court finds that a law is directed at prevention rather than punishment, it will allow the state to do the following: 1. Rely on expert decision makers. 2. Provide for judicial review through habeas corpus proceedings rather than through prerestriction hearings. 3. Use a scientific, rather than a criminal law, standard of proof. Although a state’s power to protect the public health is broad, it is restricted to preventing future harm. The state may not punish a person under its public health police powers. Administrative deprivations of liberty are tolerated only if their purpose is not punitive. The distinction between allowable restrictions and forbidden punishment is sometimes finely drawn. For example, being put in the community pesthouse was seldom a pleasant prospect, and with the closing of pesthouses, public health restrictions have frequently been carried out in prisons and jails. In one such case, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that he was being punished without due process, concluding, “While it is true that physical facilities constituting part of the penitentiary equipment are utilized, interned persons are in no sense confined in the penitentiary, and are not subject to the peculiar obloquy which attends such confinement.” [Ex parte McGee, 105 Kan. 574, 581, 185 P. 14, 16 (1919).] 1. Expert Decision Makers Public health jurisprudence is based on a deference to scientific decision making. This deference may be expressed by incorporating scientific standards into legislation or by delegating the right to make public health decisions to boards of 3 health or individual health officers who are skilled in the science of public health. This deference is illustrated in the best known of the traditional public health cases, Jacobson v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kickbacks, Honest Services, and Health Care Fraud After Skilling Joan H
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law University of North Carolina School of Law Carolina Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2012 Kickbacks, Honest Services, and Health Care Fraud After Skilling Joan H. Krause University of North Carolina School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Publication: Annals of Health Law This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kickbacks, Honest Services, and Health Care Fraud After Skilling Joan H Krause· This essay considers how the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Skilling v. United States', which limited the situations in which mail and wire fraud cases may be premised on violations of the "intangible right to honest services," has the potential to alter the future of health care fraud enforcement. To be clear, Skilling was not a healthcare case. Rather, the litigation stemmed from the investigation of Enron's former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, who was accused of engaging in a conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud as well as multiple forms of securities-related fraud. In rejecting a vagueness challenge to the honest services theory, however, the Court read the statute in a very narrow way that puts kickbacks and bribery cases squarely in the crosshairs, an approach that may have serious implications for healthcare fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Law: a Career Guide
    Health Law: A Career Guide Written By: Catherine Pattanayak, Assistant Director Joan Ruttenberg, Director of the Heyman Fellowship Program & Annelise Eaton, 2012 Summer Fellow Bernard Koteen Office of Public Interest Advising Wasserstein Hall Suite 4039 www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia Table of Contents ___________________________ Section I: An Introduction to Health Law…p. 1 Section II: Health Law Issue Areas…p. 4 Section III: Health Law Practice Settings…p. 10 Section IV: Types of Practice…p. 16 Section V: Planning Your Public Interest Health Law Career…p. 20 Section VI: Professional Narratives…p. 25 Section VII: Extracurricular Activities…p. 33 Section VIII: Health Law Courses throughout Harvard University…p. 35 Section IX: Selected Health Law Organizations…p. 39 Section X: Health Law Fellowships, Honors Programs, and Entry-Level Hiring…p. 46 Section I: An Introduction to Health Law Health law is an incredibly broad, diverse and dynamic field of law. Health lawyers work on cases and policy relating to access to care, insurance coverage, difficult ethical choices (particularly at the beginning and end of life), providers of care (and how these providers are organized and paid), the safety of our drugs and food supply, disease prevention and treatment, and many other fascinating topics. In part because of the breadth of the field, health law also cuts across and involves doctrine and practice from a wide array of areas, including contract law, tax law, corporations and nonprofit organization, insurance and pension law, employment and labor law, public benefits law, torts, ethics, criminal law, administrative law, Organization Profile: privacy, civil rights, reproductive rights, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) constitutional law, and statutory drafting and www.nylpi.org interpretation—even First Amendment religious liberty and freedom of speech concepts can be Since the 1970s, New York Lawyers for the Public implicated in the field of health law.
    [Show full text]
  • First Do No Harm: Advancing Public Health in Policing Practices Contents
    M PROGRA H First Do No Harm: Advancing Public Health in Policing Practices E AND MENTAL HEALT E AND MENTAL US NOVEMBER 2015 TANCE TANCE S SUB David Cloud • Chelsea Davis FROM THE PRESIDENT First Do No Harm addresses the disconnect between law enforcement and public health systems, which has resulted in an ineffective default response of arrest, incarcerate, and repeat for some of our society’s most vulnerable mem- bers—people living in poverty, using drugs, or living with mental illness. The now well-documented and contemporaneous failures of the war on drugs and the movement to deinstitutionalize people with serious mental illness and intellectual disabilities illuminate the need for a cohesive response among system actors to society’s ills. As you read this report, it will be clear to you that the money and resources spent rooting out and arresting people suffering from illness and addiction are far better reserved for finding alterna- tives that connect them to treatment and care. Otherwise, the burden is placed on law enforcement officers to provide a means of relief or otherwise send sick and impoverished people to overcrowded cells and through the wringer of the criminal justice system. Recent national health care reform and bipartisan calls for criminal justice reform present an opportunity to course correct. Our public services must bet- ter align themselves to address the health disparities that arise from poverty and the lack of proper treatment and care. In the case of Gloucester, Massachu- setts—which had seen an uptick in heroin-related deaths—the police chief has offered the city’s precincts as sanctuary to people with drug addictions where they can be directly connected to treatment without fear of arrest or incarcera- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected]
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2003 Inmate Litigation Margo Schlanger Harvard Law School, [email protected] Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1296 Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles Part of the Courts Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Legislation Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Schlanger, Margo. "Inmate Litigation." Harv. L. Rev. 116, no. 6 (2003): 1555-706. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 116 APRIL 2003 NUMBER 6 HARVARD LAW REVIEW I ARTICLE INMATE LITIGATION Margo Schlanger TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION r557 I. INMATE LITIGATION TRENDS r565 A. The Varied Subject Matter ofInmate Litigation r570 B. Inmate Litigation Rates r575 C. Inmate Filing Rates over Time: The "Deluge" r578 D. OfBabies and Bath Water: The Processing ofInmate Cases r587 II. OUTCOMES IN INMATE CASES (PRIOR TO THE PLRA) r590 A. Outcomes: The Data r593 B. Outcomes: Explanations r605 1. Limited Legal Rights/Exacting Decision Standard , r605 2. Easy Access to Courts r 607 3. The Absence of Counsel r609 4· Obstacles to Settlement. r6 r4 (a) The Impact of the Low Quality of the Docket r6r4 (b) Asymmetric Information r6r6 (c) Low Litigation Costs r6r7 (d) Perceived High External Settlement Costs r6r7 (e) Corrections Culture r620 5.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Public Health Law?
    PARTNERSHIP for PUBLIC HEALTH LAW Advancing Public Health Through Law PARTNERSHIP for PUBLIC HEALTH LAW Advancing Public Health Through Law What is Public Health Law? Definition PARTNERSHIP for Public health law is a field that focuses legal practice, scholarship and advocacy on issues involving the govern- ment’s legal authorities and duties “to ensurePUBLIC the conditions HEALTH for people to beLAW healthy,” 1 and how to balance these authorities and duties with “individual rightsAdvancing to autonomy, Public privacy,Health liberty,Through property Law and other legally protected interests.”2 The scope of public health law is broad. Public health law issues range from narrow questions of legal interpretation to complex matters involving public health policy, social justice and ethics. Law as a public health tool Legal tools such as statutes, regulations and litigation have played a vital role in historic and modern public health achievements including advances in infectious disease control, food safety, occupational health, injury prevention and emergency preparedness and response. For example, local governments have passed clean indoor air legisla- tion to address tobacco as a health hazard, state courts have upheld vaccination mandates and federal regulations have established vehicle performance crash standards to promote motor vehicle safety.3 Sources of public health law Legal authority relevant to population health comes from five basic legal sources and from every level of govern- ment. N Constitutions. All government action to advance public health must be consistent with constitutional authority and constitutional protections of individual rights. In addition to the U.S. Constitution, which applies nationally, all 50 states and many tribal and territorial governments have adopted constitutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigating Healthcare Fraud: Its Scope, Applicable Laws, and Regulations
    William & Mary Business Law Review Volume 11 (2019-2020) Issue 2 Article 5 February 2020 Investigating Healthcare Fraud: Its Scope, Applicable Laws, and Regulations Nicole Forbes Stowell Carl Pacini Nathan Wadlinger Jaqueline M. Crain Martina Schmidt Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr Part of the Consumer Protection Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, and the Insurance Law Commons Repository Citation Nicole Forbes Stowell, Carl Pacini, Nathan Wadlinger, Jaqueline M. Crain, and Martina Schmidt, Investigating Healthcare Fraud: Its Scope, Applicable Laws, and Regulations, 11 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 479 (2020), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr/vol11/iss2/5 Copyright c 2020 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmblr INVESTIGATING HEALTHCARE FRAUD: ITS SCOPE, APPLICABLE LAWS, AND REGULATIONS NICOLE FORBES STOWELL* CARL PACINI** NATHAN WADLINGER*** JACQUELINE M. CRAIN**** MARTINA SCHMIDT***** ABSTRACT Healthcare costs are not only an enormous strain on the U.S. economy but are expected to increase in the foreseeable future. Not surprisingly, clever fraudsters view the healthcare industry as a lucrative and attractive hotspot for illegal activity. Although federal and state governments have increased their funding and prosecu- tion efforts relating to healthcare fraud, this fraud continues to be a major threat to the U.S. economy and every patient and consumer. The impact of healthcare fraud is substantial and far-reaching. Healthcare fraud in the U.S. affects not only the government, but also insurance companies, patients, healthcare providers, and con- sumers. This Article examines the types of healthcare fraud and the major federal laws used to combat this type of fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Care Fraud & Abuse Law Flexibility During
    Prioritizing People: Health Care Fraud & Abuse Law Flexibility During COVID-19 Health Law Lab | December 2020 As communities across the country continue to grapple with the consequences of COVID-19, the health care system is called upon to support social determinants of health (SDOH). While compliance with health care fraud and abuse laws can be a barrier to some types of support, this blog post explores considerations raised by recent feedback from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Through the feedback, OIG communicates recognition of the urgency for SDOH interventions and the need for common-sense flexibility during the public health emergency. Enforcers Weigh in on Compliance with Health Care Fraud and Abuse Laws OIG, the division responsible for enforcing federal health care fraud and abuse laws, has published feedback on navigating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the prohibition on inducements to federal health care program beneficiariesin light of COVID-19. The feedback is provided as a series of Frequently Asked Questions in which the OIG evaluates the risk of legal noncompliance associated with various proposed arrangements. Federal Law • The Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)) generally prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving anything of value to induce or reward referrals for items/services payable under a federal health care program. Safe harbors exempt certain arrangements from liability. • The Civil Monetary Penalties Law prohibition on beneficiary inducements (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a) generally prohibits offering something of value to a federal health care program beneficiary that is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of particular providers, practitioners, or suppliers, unless the transaction fits within an exception.
    [Show full text]
  • Treating Physicians As Expert Witnesses in Compensation Systems: the Public Eh Alth Connection Brian C
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 90 | Issue 4 Article 8 2002 Treating Physicians as Expert Witnesses in Compensation Systems: The Public eH alth Connection Brian C. Murchison Washington & Lee University Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Murchison, Brian C. (2002) "Treating Physicians as Expert Witnesses in Compensation Systems: The ubP lic Health Connection," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 90 : Iss. 4 , Article 8. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol90/iss4/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Treating Physicians as Expert Witnesses in Compensation Systems: The Public Health Connection BY BRIAN C. MURCHISON* INTRODUCTION T hepractice of public health consists of an elaborate web ofpolicies, strategies, and disciplines, including law.' Law is an instrument of public health in a broad sense when it is "used to establish norms for healthy behavior and to help create the social conditions in which people can be healthy."2 Law serves public health most directly through legislation *Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University School of Law. B.A., J.D., Yale University. I wish to thank Dean Allen Vestal and Professor Dayna Matthew for many helpful discussions on a range of issues relating to this Article; the Frances Lewis Law Center for supporting the project; and Jeffrey A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Torts: Defensive Medicine and the Unsupported Case for Medical Malpractice ‘Reform’
    The Truth About Torts: Defensive Medicine and the Unsupported Case for Medical Malpractice ‘Reform’ By CPR Member Scholars Sidney Shapiro and Thomas McGarity, and CPR Policy Analysts Nicholas Vidargas and James Goodwin Center for Progressive Reform CENTER FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORM WHITE PAPER #1203 February 2012 About the Center for Progressive Reform Founded in 2002, the Center for Progressive Reform is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research and educational organization comprising a network of scholars across the nation dedicated to protecting health, safety, and the environment through analysis and commentary. CPR believes sensible safeguards in these areas serve important shared values, including doing the best we can to prevent harm to people and the environment, distributing environmental harms and benefits fairly, and protecting the earth for future generations. CPR rejects the view that the economic efficiency of private markets should be the only value used to guide government action. Rather, CPR supports thoughtful government action and reform to advance the well-being of human life and the environment. Additionally, CPR believes people play a crucial role in ensuring both private and public sector decisions that result in improved protection of consumers, public health and safety, and the environment. Accordingly, CPR supports ready public access to the courts, enhanced public participation and improved public access to information. The Center for Progressive Reform is grateful to the American Association for Justice for funding this report, as well as to the Bauman Foundation, the Deer Creek Foundation, and the Open Society Institute for their generous support of its work in general. This white paper is a collaborative effort of the following Member Scholars and staff of the Center for Progressive Reform: Sidney Shapiro holds the University Distinguished Chair in Law at the Wake Forest University School of Law, is the Associate Dean for Research and Development, and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Center for Progressive Reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Care Fraud
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by George Washington University: Health Sciences Research Commons (HSRC) Health Care Fraud Sara Rosenbauma JD Nancy Lopezb JD MPH Scott Stifler, JD (2010) October 27, 2009 Funded with a Grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation This analysis was written in collaboration with the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP), an independent academy of state health policy makers working together to identify emerging issues, develop policy solutions, and improve state health policy and practice. As a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to helping states achieve excellence in health policy and practice, NASHP provides a forum on critical health issues across branches and agencies of state government. For more information about NASHP, please visit www.nashp.org a Hirsh Professor and Chair, the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy. b Senior Research Scientist, the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, Department of Health Policy. Introduction Adequate safeguards against health care fraud are essential to the proper functioning of any health care system. This analysis examines health care fraud in the U.S., and its findings underscore the importance to national health reform of comprehensive anti-fraud protections covering both public and private health insurance industry. This analysis examines health care fraud in a national policy context. Its findings underscore two critical points. First despite strong evidence that fraud is system-wide and affects the cost of health care in both public and private insurance, national reporting systems on health care fraud fail to capture private sector fraud.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Health Law
    1 2 3 4 •Source: Tobey JA. Public Health Law. Third Edition. The Commonwealth Fund. New York, 1947. 5 •Instructor: this is an essential slide, as the objectives frame the order of content included in this unit. •Core concepts and definitions will include: federalism (U.S. governance and legal system), police powers, and definition of “law.” •Sources of law necessary for public health practice will include: constitutions, statutes, administrative law, and common (case) law. •Constitutional safeguards protecting individuals’ rights will include: the Bill of Rights and the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments, and how they provide checks on government authorities. 6 Note to instructor: this is an optional slide. •*Source of slide: MMWR 1999: Vol. 48 / No. 12 •Purpose of slide is to, at onset of course, further stimulate class participants to begin actively thinking about role of law in relation to each major public health achievement listed in slide. •If used, either simply display and move on to next slide, or invite class participation to discuss role of law for all or for only selected achievements. For example, for each listed achievement, invite course participants to give 1-2 laws that contributed to the public health achievement (e.g., for motor-vehicle safety, laws include speed limits, safety-/seat-belt requirements, airbag requirements, blood-alcohol limits, highway funding contingent on minimum legal drinking age). •An alternative is to use this optional slide to conclude this unit or as a starter in subsequent units. 7 8 9 10 11 12 •*Source: Adapted from: Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Defamation: Still “An Instrument of Destruction” in the Age of Fake News
    CRIMINAL DEFAMATION: STILL “AN INSTRUMENT OF DESTRUCTION” IN THE AGE OF FAKE NEWS Jane E. Kirtley* & Casey Carmody** I. INTRODUCTION When Bangladeshi journalist Abdul Latif Morol, a correspondent for the Daily Probaha, used Facebook on August 1, 2017 to relay reports about the death of a goat, he was not expecting to be the target of a criminal defamation prosecution.1 The previous day, Bangladesh’s Minister of State for Fisheries and Livestock Narayan Chandra Chanda donated the goat to a poor farmer in Dumuria during an event sponsored by the government’s local livestock department.2 Following the event, news organizations published stories noting that the goat had died overnight. Morol took to Facebook to report the information, writing, “Goat given by state minister in the morning dies in the evening.”3 Soon after the post was published, fellow journalist Subrata Faujdar, a correspondent for the Daily Spandan, filed a criminal defamation complaint against Morol.4 Faujdar claimed that Morol’s post, which also contained a photo of the minister, was intended to demean the official.5 Faujdar was a supporter of the ruling party in Bangladesh and filed the complaint because * Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, and Director, Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics and Law, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota; Affiliated Faculty Member, University of Minnesota Law School. ** PhD Candidate, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota. The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Scott Memmel, PhD candidate and editor Silha Bulletin, Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, in the preparation of this article.
    [Show full text]