Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Role of Charity in a Federal System

Abstract: This Article critiques the prevailing justification for subsidies for the charitable sector, and suggests a new alternative. According to contemporary accounts, charity corrects the failure of the private market to provide public goods, and further corrects the failure of government to provide goods other than those demanded by the median voter.However, the claim that government can meet the needs only of a single “median voter” neglects both federalism and public choice theory. Citizens dissatisfied with the services of one government can move to or even create another. Alternatively, they may use the threat of exit to lobby for local change. Subsidies for charity inefficiently distort the operation of these markets for legal rules.Nonetheless, there remains a strong case for subsidizing charity, albeit on grounds new to the literature. Charity serves as gap-filler when federalism mechanisms break down. For example, frictions on exit produce too little jurisdictional competition, and excessively easy exit produces too much competition - a race to the bottom. At the same time, competition from government constrains inefficient charities. Thus, charity and government each perform best as complements to the other.Finally, this Article sketches the normative legal consequences of these claims. Most significantly, I respond to the claims by Malani and Posner that for-profit charity would be superior to current arrangements. That suggestion would fatally weaken competition between charity and government, defeating the only persuasive purpose for charitable subsidies.

The "Conscience" Rule: How Will It Affect Patients' Access to Health Services?

Abstract: On May 2, 2019, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a final rule that heightens the rights of hospitals and health workers to refuse to participate in patients’ medical care based on religious or moral grounds. The rule covers OCR’s authority to investigate and enforce violations of 25 federal “conscience protection” laws. Tied to the US Constitution’s spending power, the rule applies to state and local governments, as well as public and private health care professionals and entities if they receive federal funds such as Medicare or Medicaid. The rule applies to a range of important health services such as abortions, sterilizations, assisted suicide, and advance directives — extending to sex reassignment and HIV treatment.

Bioengineered Food--Safety and Labeling

Abstract: The safety and labeling of genetically engineered foods are two areas that have elicited considerable public concern and debate This Policy Forum provides a legal analysis of these issues in the context of two bills that have been recently proposed in The US Congress, the Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act and the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act Most transgenic components of foods currently on the market are plant-incorporated protectants or their inert ingredients Therefore, they have been evaluated for safety by the Environmental Protection Agency (as well as the Food and Drug Administration), and their disclosure in labeling should not be required If plant-incorporated protectants are considered safer than chemical pesticides, and chemical pesticides do not have to be disclosed in labels, then bioengineered foods should not be subject to stricter regulation, nor should they be required to be labeled The two bills are inconsistent, in many respects, with well-established principles of food regulation

Imagining Global Health with Justice: In Defense of the Right to Health.

Abstract: The singular message in Global Health Law is that we must strive to achieve global health with justice--improved population health, with a fairer distribution of benefits of good health. Global health entails ensuring the conditions of good health--public health, universal health coverage, and the social determinants of health--while justice requires closing today’s vast domestic and global health inequities. These conditions for good health should be incorporated into public policy, supplemented by specific actions to overcome barriers to equity. A new global health treaty grounded in the right to health and aimed at health equity--a Framework Convention on Global Health (FCGH)--stands out for its possibilities in helping to achieve global health with justice. This far-reaching legal instrument would establish minimum standards for universal health coverage and public health measures, with an accompanying national and international financing framework, require a constant focus on health equity, promote Health in All Policies and global governance for health, and advance the principles of good governance, including accountability. While achieving an FCGH is certainly ambitious, it is a struggle worth the efforts of us all. The treaty’s basis in the right to health, which has been agreed to by all governments, has powerful potential to form the foundation of global governance for health. From interpretations of UN treaty bodies to judgments of national courts, the right to health is now sufficiently articulated to serve this role, with the individual’s right to health best understood as a function of a social, political, and economic environment aimed at equity. However great the political challenge of securing state agreement to the FCGH, it is possible. States have joined other treaties with significant resource requirements and limitations on their sovereignty without significant reciprocal benefits from other states, while important state interests would benefit from the FCGH. And from integrating the FCGH into the existing human rights system to creative forms of compliance and enforcement and strengthened domestic legal and political accountability mechanisms, the treaty stands to improve right to health compliance. The potential for the FCGH to bring the right to health nearer universal reality calls for us to embark on the journey towards securing this global treaty.