Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:06:14.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Paul Bailin ,
Elizabeth Gerber  and
Sharon Jacobs
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Summer 2008 , pp. 425 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Ferguson v. McKiernan, 855 A.2d 121, 2007 WL 4555436 (Pa. Dec 27, 2007).Google Scholar
Ferguson v. McKiernan, 60 Pa. D. & C.4th 353, 358 (Dauphin Cty. 2002).Google Scholar
855 A.2d 121 (Pa.Super., 2004).Google Scholar
See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *8–9.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. and Walters, L., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2003): at 564.Google Scholar
Ploeg, I., Prosthetic Bodies: The Construction of the Fetus and the Couple as Patients in Reproductive Technologies (Boston: Kluwer, 2001): At 25. Concerns have been raised by some groups, ranging from theological objections to the intervention of technology in the natural conception process to objections that certain fertility clinics implant too many embryos in the uterus, resulting in multiple pregnancies and selective abortions. See, e.g., Robertson, J., Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *1–3.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Kesler v. Weniger, 744 A.2d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2000).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Johnson v. Superior Court, 101 Cal.App.4th 869, 874 (2002).Google Scholar
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 4343; 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 5102; see also Kesler v. Weniger, supra note 8.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Knorr v. Knorr, 588 A.2d 503, 504–05 (Pa. 1991).Google Scholar
See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *12.Google Scholar
Id., at *8.Google Scholar
Id., at *7.Google Scholar
Id., at *1.Google Scholar
See “Uniform Matrimonial and Family Laws Location” list available at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol9.html> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar
Uniform Parentage Act (2002) § 702 and commentary.Google Scholar
See McKiernan, supra note 1, at *8.Google Scholar
In November 2007, a New York family court assessed child support on a sperm donor who had allowed his name to appear on the birth certificate and had sent the child occasional gifts and cards (signed “Dad”) over the years. (Chang, S., “Sperm Donor Liable for Child Support, Judge Rules,” Newsday, December 1, 2007). In a recent British case, a man providing sperm to a lesbian couple had to pay child support based only on the fact that the donation was not made through a licensed fertility clinic (Goodchild, S., “Fireman Sperm Donor to Fight CSA,” Evening Standard, March 12, 2007).Google Scholar
American Society of Reproductive Medicine, 2006 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation, available at <http://www.asrm.org/Patients/topics/embryodonation.html> (last visited March 11, 2008; report is password protected).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008;+report+is+password+protected).>Google Scholar

References

Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F.Supp.2d 1245, 1250 (W.D. Wash. 2007). It should be noted that “conscience clause” is the term used by advocates of the pharmacist's right to decline to fill the prescription, while “refusal clause” is the term used by advocates of the patient's right to have the prescription filled. Smearman, C. A., “Drawing the Line: The Legal, Ethical and Public Policy Implications of Refusal Clauses for Pharmacists,” Arizona Law Review 48, no. 3 (2006): 469–540, at 474. In this article, I adopt the choice of the Stormans court to use “conscience clause” to avoid confusion.Google Scholar
Duvall, M., “Pharmacy Conscience Clause Statutes: Constitutional Religious ‘Accommodations’ or Unconstitutional ‘Substantial Burdens’ on Women?” American University Law Review 55, no. 5 (2006): 1485–1522, at 1486–1487.Google Scholar
410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Weiss, C. et al., American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, “Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights,” American Civil Liberties Union, New York, 2002, available at <http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=10946&c=224> (last visited March 11, 2008).Google Scholar
Id., at 1–3.Google Scholar
See Smearman, , supra note 1; Card, R. F., “Conscientious Objection and Emergency Contraception,” American Journal of Bioethics 7, no. 6 (2007): 8–14, at 8 (“There has been increased attention focused on this issue, given numerous reports….that medical professionals have refused to honor women's requests for EC based on conscientious objection.”).Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief: Refusing to Provide Health Services, January 1, 2008, available at <http://www.guttmache.org/state-center/spibs/spib_EC.pdf> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Pontifical Academy for Life, Statement on the So-Called Morning-After Pill β, 2000, available at <http://www.vatican.va/romancuria/pontificalacademies/acdlife/documents/rcpaacdlifedoc20001031pillola-giorno-dopoen.html> (“Pregnancy, in fact, begins with fertilization and not with the implantation of the blastocyst in the uterine wall.”); Murray, N. M., “Doctors No Longer Have a Conscience Clause,” Tri-City Herald (Washington), August 12, 2007, at F3 (“The real issue is whether pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense drugs that kill rather than heal.”).+(“Pregnancy,+in+fact,+begins+with+fertilization+and+not+with+the+implantation+of+the+blastocyst+in+the+uterine+wall.”);+Murray,+N.+M.,+“Doctors+No+Longer+Have+a+Conscience+Clause,”+Tri-City+Herald+(Washington),+August+12,+2007,+at+F3+(“The+real+issue+is+whether+pharmacists+have+the+right+to+refuse+to+dispense+drugs+that+kill+rather+than+heal.”).>Google Scholar
Glasier, A., “Emergency Postcoital Contraception,” New England Journal of Medicine 337, no. 15 (1997): 1058–1064, at 1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id., at 1058. Compare Croxatto, H. B., Brache, V., and Pavez, M. et al., “Pituitary-Ovarian Function Following the Standard Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraceptive Dose or a Single 0.75mg. Dose Given on the Days Preceding Ovulation,” Contraception 70, no. 6 (2004): 442–450 (concluding that the contraceptive efficacy of emergency contraception is solely from its disruption of ovulation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, B. L., “Compelled Expression of the Religiously Forbidden: Pharmacists, ‘Duty to Fill’ Statutes, and the Hybrid Rights Exception,” University of Hawaii Law Review 29 (2006): 97–121, at 103. For a general overview of the processes involved in conception and emergency contraception, see id., at 101–03; see also Card, , supra note 6, at 10–11.Google Scholar
Id., at 98. Compare Card, supra note 6 (undermining the scientific and ethical basis of an objection to emergency contraception based on a comparison to abortion).Google Scholar
See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 1250–1251.Google Scholar
Id., at 1253.Google Scholar
Id., at 1253–1254.Google Scholar
Id., at 1249.Google Scholar
Id. These individuals are interveners, third parties who have interests implicated by the suit and who were permitted to represent those interests alongside the defendants.Google Scholar
Id., at 1255.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 1266. The plaintiffs made Fourteenth Amendment and Supremacy Clause claims that the Court did not reach because the First Amendment discussion was dispositive. Id., at 1255 and 1266.Google Scholar
Id., at 1263.Google Scholar
Id., at 1257–1263.Google Scholar
Id., at 1263.Google Scholar
Id., at 1263.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 1263 (citing in support Bray v. Alexandria Women's Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 271–74 [1993]).Google Scholar
Id., at 1264.Google Scholar
Menges v. Blagojevich, 451 F.Supp.2d 992 (D.C. Ill. 2006).Google Scholar
See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 1, at 1266.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
506 U.S. 263 (1993).Google Scholar
See Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, supra note 14, at 1263.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
These cases also provide the basis for a stronger claim for a duty to dispense on the basis of a Due Process challenge. See, e.g., Duvall, supra note 2, at 1498 (“[T]he Supreme Court could analyze pharmacy conscience clause statutes under Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut, rather than under Casey and Webster. Applying Eisenstadt and Griswold, which hold that citizens have a fundamental right to contraceptives and to ‘be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child,’ women may have more success challenging the constitutionality of pharmacy conscience clause statutes.”).Google Scholar
See Dong, A., ed., “Access to Contraception,” Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law 8, no. 2 (2007): 775–805, at 804.Google Scholar
141 F.Supp.2d 1266 (W.D.Wash. 2001).Google Scholar
Id., at 1271.Google Scholar
Id., at 1272 cf. Glaubach v. Regence Blueshield (2003) 149 Wash.2d 827, 74 P.3d 115, 116–119 (holding that a Washington statute requiring insurers to provide coverage regardless of sex does not mandate coverage of all prescription contraceptives).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
85 P.3d 67 (Cal. 2004).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 92.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Chandrasekhar, C. A., “Rx for Drugstore Discrimination: Challenging Pharmacy Refusals to Dispense Prescription Contraceptives under State Public Accommodations Laws,” Albany Law Review 70, no. 1 (2006): 55–115; Vargas, C., Note, “The EPICC Quest for Prescription Contraceptive Insurance Coverage,” American Journal of Law and Medicine 28, no. 4 (2002): 455–471.Google Scholar
Id. (Chandrasekhar), at 85.Google Scholar
Tomkowiak, S., Note, “Reconciling Principles and Prescriptions: Do Pharmacist Refusal Clauses Strike the Appropriate Balance between Pharmacists' and Patients' Rights?” University of Illinois Law Review 2007, no. 4 (2007): 1329–1360, at 1346–48.Google Scholar
Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital, 208 Cal.App.3d 405 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1989).Google Scholar
Id., at 409.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 413.Google Scholar
“How Plan B Works,” available at <http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/HowItWorks.aspx> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Pharmacists for Life International, The Pill — How It Works and Fails, available at <http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar

References

Locke, L., “San Francisco's Latest Innovation: Universal Health Care,” Time, June 23, 2006, available at <http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/press/time_june06.shtml> (last visited March 11, 2008). (last visited March 11, 2008).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Locke,+L.,+“San+Francisco's+Latest+Innovation:+Universal+Health+Care,”+Time,+June+23,+2006,+available+at++(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
“Groundbreaking City Health Care Plan Passes in S.F.,” San Jose Mercury News, July 19, 2006.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
29 U.S.C. §1144(a) (West, Westlaw through August 2006 amendments).Google Scholar
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97 (1983).Google Scholar
Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94112, **17–18 (N.D. Cal. 2007).Google Scholar
Id., at **24–25.Google Scholar
Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City of San Francisco, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 364, *3 (9th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
Id., at *2.Google Scholar
Id., at *4.Google Scholar
Id., at *5.Google Scholar
Id., at **16–17.Google Scholar
Id., at **20–22.Google Scholar
Id., at *25.Google Scholar
Id., at *29.Google Scholar
Id., at *33.Google Scholar
Id., at **34–35.Google Scholar
Id., at *38 (citing Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 318 [1943]).Google Scholar
Egelko, B., “Ruling Lets S.F. Enforce its Law on Health,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Rojas, A., “All Eyes on S.F.: Challenge to City's Health Care Plan Could Affect State,” Sacramento Bee, January 13, 2008.Google Scholar
Nauta, R., Recent Development, “ERISA Preempts Maryland's Fair Share Health Care Fund Act: The Chilling Effect on State Innovation in Health Care Cost-Sharing with Big Business,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 4 (2007): 756–758, at 758. The case was Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180 (4th Cir. 2007)Google Scholar
Retail Indus. Leaders Ass’n v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 183 (4th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar
Id., at p.197.Google Scholar
Befort, S. and Kopka, C., “The Sounds of Silence: The Libertarian Ethos of ERISA Preemption,” Florida Law Review 52 (2000): 1–40, at 26–29.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures, “2006–2007 Fair Share HealthCare Funds or ‘Pay or Play’ Bills,” available at <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/payorplay2006.htm#2007> (last visited March 11, 2008).+(last+visited+March+11,+2008).>Google Scholar