SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Medical device regulations in Germany are changing. The first amendment of the Medical Device Law, the MPG, is in preparation. Four decrees on medical devices are also being discussed by the Bundesrat, the Federal Council. This article summarizes what manufacturers, distributors and users should know about the German device regulations.
In recent years, advances in medical science have left the legal community with a wide array of social, ethical, and legal problems previously unimaginable. Historically, legislative and judicial responses to these advances lagged behind the rapid pace of such developments. The gap between the scientist's question, "Can we do it?," and the lawyer's question, "Should/may we do it?'" is most evident in the field of cryonics, with its technique of cryonic, or cryogenic, suspension. In cryonic suspension, a legally dead but biologically viable person is preserved at an extremely low temperature until advances in medical science make it possible to revive the person and implement an effective cure. The terminally ill patient who wishes to benefit from such treatment is faced with the dilemma that present life must be ceased with hope of future recovery. As a result, the process challenges our traditional notions of death and the prospects of immortality while raising a host of concomitant legal dilemmas. Some facets of this dilemma are exemplified by Donaldson v. Van de Kamp. In Donaldson, Thomas A. Donaldson sought the declaration of a constitutional right to premortem cryonic suspension of his body and the assistance of others in achieving that state. Donaldson, a forty-six-year-old mathematician and computer software scientist, suffers from a malignant brain tumor that was diagnosed by his physicians in 1988. This tumor is inoperable and continues to grow and invade his brain tissue. Donaldson's condition will gradually deteriorate into a persistent vegetative state and will ultimately result in death. Physicians predict his probable death by August 1993. Donaldson petitioned the California courts, seeking a declaration that he had a constitutional right to achieve cryonic suspension before his natural death. His doctors believe that if Donaldson waits until his natural death to be suspended, future reanimation will be futile because the tumor will have destroyed his brain. In addition, Donaldson's doctors sought an injunction against criminal prosecution for their participation in the suspension, because Donaldson, once suspended, would be considered "dead" under California law. Donaldson and his doctors built their novel argument upon the recent right-to-die cases in which the courts recognized a patient's right to have life-sustaining medical treatment withdrawn. Donaldson argued that his right to privacy and self-determination is paramount to any state interest in maintaining life. Thus, according to Donaldson, balancing the state's reasons to end--or "interrupt," as cryonics enthusiasts would have it--his own life was not necessary. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and Donaldson appealed to the California Court of Appeals. Because the cryonic process would necessarily involve physician-assisted death, or the aiding, advising, or encouraging of another to commit suicide, the appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that Donaldson did not have a constitutional right to assisted death. Additionally, in light of Donaldson's First Amendment challenge to the statute, the court upheld the criminal statute prohibiting the aiding, advising, or encouraging of another to commit suicide. This Note briefly discusses the process of cryonic suspension and explores the holding of Donaldson in light of the underlying rationale of the California right-to-die cases. Considering the contradictory state and individual interests balanced in the right-to-die cases, this Note concludes that, under a similar balancing test, premortem cryonic suspension could be permitted under certain circumstances; however, the right to premortem cryonic suspension may be more effectively recognized through legislation.
During the past century the U.S. Supreme COurt has developed a "deference" approach to resolving church property disputes in civil courts. This approach requires a civil court to defer to the decisions of the appropriate superior body in a hierarchical church, absent allegations of fraud or collusion by the church. In the late 1970s, a parallel approach developed, whereby a civil court may resolve church property disputes by applying neutral principles of property law. Insofar as the property documents contain express assertions of church law to be applied in disputes, those laws will be followed. If the church documents are silent, the civil court will not have recourse to other church documents but will decide the matter for itself. This, of course, could result in the civil court deciding contrary to the church tribunal. Both the deference approach and the neutral-principles approach satisfy the demands of the First Amendment because neither, the Supreme Court has said, interferes with the free exercise of religion nor unduly establishes a religion. A strong four-justice dissent in a recent decision may, however, signal trouble ahead for the neutral-principles approach.
Legal precedent for the regulation of commercial speech makes clear that the First Amendment does not prohibit government control of alcohol and cigarette advertising. A review of federal legislation suggests that the problem lies with the political process rather than with constitutional prohibition.
The Internet has revolutionized communication on a global level while creating a medium for stalking. Cyberstalking has emerged as a new form of stalking behavior. While 10 states have passed laws against electronic harassment, there has been great debate about whether electronic stalking constitutes criminal behavior or whether a perpetrator is entitled First Amendment protection. In the psychiatric literature to date, there are no studies of cyberstalking. This article focuses on relevant cases of stalking on the Internet. Specific legal issues associated with cyberstalking, such as boundary laws and freedom of speech, are examined. The psychological profile of the cyberstalker, as well as methods of intervention, are discussed.
All youngsters are at some risk from exposure to televised pornography, as described above. At particular risk for harm, however, are the most vulnerable children in our society--children in single-parent homes, children with mental and emotional disturbances, mentally challenged children, children who have been physically and/or sexually abused, and children in dysfunctional families. Youngsters for whom television serves as a babysitter or parental surrogate unfortunately are exposed to few competing influences to television viewing. In addition, parents in such homes are least likely to know what their children are viewing and to be able to pass on their own values about sex and sexual behavior. The main possible effects of televised pornography that must concern us as clinicians, educators, and parents are modeling and imitation of language heard and behaviors observed in televised pornography; negative interference with children's normal sexual development; emotional reactions such as nightmares and feelings of anxiety, guilt, confusion, and/or shame; stimulation of premature sexual activity; development of unrealistic, misleading, and/or harmful attitudes toward sex and adult male-female relationships; and undermining of family values with resultant conflict between parents and children. Much more research is clearly needed on this topic. Because of the ethical and procedural problems surrounding research on children exposed to pornography, ideal research designs may never be possible. Nonetheless, we hope that this article will stimulate further discussion and work. To devise public policy that protects children from potentially harmful material while at the same time respecting the media's First Amendment rights, such public discourse and responsible research are essential.
The article surveys the development of legislation to the slaughtering of warm-blooded animals in Germany since 1933. It examines the ritual slaughtering of the Jews (Schechita) on the one hand, and of the Moslems (Dabh) on the other hand. While 1933 the legislation was coined by the political situation, after 1949, legal setting and decisions reflected the changing sensibility to animals' protection. Before 1945, Schechita was the matter of legal dispute, more recently, the discussion has centred on the ritual slaughtering of the Moslems, with different arguments. The "Law on the Slaughtering of Animals" of 21-04-33 was part and parcel of the Third Reich's policy against Jews implicating a nation wide practical inhibition of Schechita by decreeing a general obligation of stunning before slaughtering. In 1945, the inhibition of Schechita became invalid after the occupation of the Reich by the Allied Forces. For the first time, the "First Amendment to the Animal Protection Law" of 1986 permitted ritual slaughtering by the way of exception as long as it was covered by the religious obligations. In 1995 the Federal Administrative Court judged that an inhibition of the ritual slaughtering by Moslems could be possible, because there are no religious obligations for Moslems. Nowadays, the ritual slaughtering of the Moslems is, de facto, forbidden, Schechita is performed in some cities for the needs of the residential Jewish population.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.