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.

Public Stem Cell Banks: Considerations of Justice in Stem Cell Research and Therapy

Abstract: If stem cells fulfill their therapeutic promise, moving them from the laboratory into the clinic will raise several concerns about justice. One concern is that, for biological reasons alone, stem cell-based therapies might not be available for every patient who needs one. Worse, depending on how we address the problem of biological access, they might benefit primarily white Americans. We can avoid this outcome—although at a cost—by carefully selecting the stem cells we make available.

The Difference in Women’s Hedonic Lives: A Phenomenological Critique of Feminist Legal Theory

Abstract: Part One of this article provides a phenomenological and hedonic critique of the conception of the human – and thus the female – that underlies liberal legal feminism. Part Two presents a phenomenological critique of the conception of the human – and thus the female – which underlies radical feminist legal criticism. Again, I will argue that in both cases the theory does not pay enough attention to feminism: liberal feminist legal theory owes more to liberalism than to feminism and radical feminist legal theory owes more to radicalism than it does to feminism. Both models accept a depiction of human nature which is simply untrue of women. Thus, both accept, uncritically, a claimed correlation between objective condition and subjective reality, which, I will argue, is untrue to women. As a result, both groups fail to address the distinctive quality of women's subjective, hedonic lives, and the theories they have generated therefore have the potential to backfire – badly – against women's true interests. In the concluding section I will suggest an alternative normative model for feminist legal criticism which aims neither for choice nor equality, but directly for women's happiness, and a feminist legal theory which has as its critical focus the felt experience of women's subjective, hedonic lives. My substantive claim is that women's happiness or pleasure – as opposed to women's freedom or equality – should be the ideal toward which feminist legal criticism and reform should be pressed, and that women's misery, suffering and pain – as opposed to women's oppression or subordination – is the evil we should resist. I will argue that feminist legal theorists, in short, have paid too much attention to the ideals of equality and autonomy and not enough attention to the hedonistic ideals of happiness and pleasure, and that correlatively we have paid too much attention to the evils of subordination and oppression, and not enough attention to the hedonistic evils of suffering and pain. My methodological assumption is that the key to moral decision-making lies in our capacity to empathize with the pain of others, and thereby resist the source of it, and not in our capacity for abstraction, generalization, or reason. My strategic claim is directly entailed: the major obstacle to achieving the empathic understanding which is the key to significant moral commitment, including the commitment of the legal system to address the causes of women's suffering, is the striking difference between women's and men's internal lives, and more specifically, the different quality of our joys and sorrows. This obstacle can only be overcome through rich description of our internal hedonic lives.

Meeting the survival needs of the world's least healthy people: a proposed model for global health governance.

Abstract: NTERNATIONAL HEALTH ASSISTANCE IS PROVIDED IN AN INeffective way that does not enhance the capability for human functioning. 1 Most funding is driven by emotional,high-visibilityevents,includinglarge-scalenatural disasters such as the Asian tsunami; diseases that capture the public’s imagination such as the human immunodeficiency virus and AIDS; or diseases with the potential for rapid global transmission such as hemorrhagic fever, severe acute respiratory syndrome, or pandemic influenza. These funding streams skew priorities and divert resources from building stable local systems to meet everyday health needs. A relatively small number of wealthy donors currently wield considerable influence in setting the global health agenda. Although well intentioned, rich countries and philanthropistsoftensetprioritiesthatdonotreflectlocalneeds and preferences. Sometimes donors exert control over the useoffundsthatdiscourageslocalleadersfromtakingownership over programs. Conditions attached to funding can evenbedetrimentaltothepublic’shealth,suchasthePresident’sEmergencyPlanforAIDSReliefrequirementthat33% of prevention funds must be spent on chastity and fidelity, whereas no funding can be used for clean needle programs. 2 Similarly, for years, development banks have encouraged or required poor countries to cap internal spending on health as a condition of loans or debt relief. 3 Donor countries often fund politically popular projects, ratherthanwhatismostlikelytoimproveglobalhealth,leading some experts to conclude, “... funding is skewed towards what people in the West want to deliver.” 4 International health assistance, moreover, is fragmented and uncoordinated. Nongovernmental organizations and relief agencies often establish programs that compete with each other and, still worse, compete with local government and businesses. Rather than integrating policies and programs within local hospitals, clinics, and health agencies, they set upstate-of-the-artfacilitiesthatovershadowanddetractfrom governmentandprivateefforts.Foreignphilanthropistscan offer salaries and amenities that are far more generous than those that can be offered locally. As a result, local innovation and entrepreneurship are stifled; talented individuals in business, health care, and community development migrate to foreign-run programs; and the local health industry cannot profit or easily survive. 5 In addition, massive infusion of humanitarian assistance into very poor countries can lead to reliance and dependency. If charity is the main vehicle for health improvement, local government and businesses lose the desire and ability to solve problems on their own. When the infusion of foreign cash, clinics, medicines, and aid workers ends, the least healthy will be no better and perhaps worse off, unless they gain the capacity to meet their own basic health needs.

Public Health Law in a New Century: Part I: Law as a Tool to Advance the Community's Health

Abstract: Statutes, regulations, and litigation are pivotal tools for creating conditions for people to lead healthier and safer lives. Law can educate, create incentives, and deter; mandate safer product design and use of property; and alter the informational, physical, or economic environment.This article defines public health law as the power and duty of the state to ensure conditions for people to be healthy and limitations on the state's power to constrain autonomy, privacy, liberty, and proprietary interests of individuals and businesses. The 5 essential characteristics of public health law discussed are (1) the government's responsibility to defend against health risks and promote the public's health; (2) the population-based perspective of public health, emphasizing prevention; (3) the relationship between government and the populace; (4) the mission, core functions, and services of the public health system; and (5) the power to coerce individuals, professionals, and businesses for the community's protection.