scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Conventional wisdom among health economists, including several participants in this symposium, holds that this claim that physician adherence to an anti-competitive ethic of fidelity to patients and suppression of pecuniary influences on clinical judgment pushes medical markets toward social optimality is either naive or outdated.
Abstract: �� At the core of Kenneth Arrow’s classic 1963 essay on medical uncertainty is a claim that has failed to carry the day among economists. This claim — that physician adherence to an anti-competitive ethic of fidelity to patients and suppression of pecuniary influences on clinical judgment pushes medical markets toward social optimality — has won Arrow near-iconic status among medical ethicists (and many physicians). Yet conventional wisdom among health economists, including several participants in this symposium, holds that this claim is either naive or outdated. Health economists admire Arrow’s article for its path-breaking analysis of market failures resulting from information asymmetry, uncertainty, and moral hazard. But his suggestion that anticompetitive professional norms can compensate for these market failures is at odds with economists’ more typical treatment of professional norms as monopolistic constraints on contractual possibility. Arrow acknowledged that all indusrywide norms of conduct limit the options for economic exchange (Arrow 1972). For some commentators, the fact of such limits is proof enough of the perniciousness of professional norms from an efficiency perspective. Richard Posner (1993) treats the common “ideology” of guild members concerning matters of quality and craftsmanship as a tool for cartelizing production in order to serve the selfinterest of members. 1 Guild ideology, in this view, deceives both its own adherents and the public concerning members’ furtherance of their own 1. Guild ideology, so interpreted, discourages would-be defectors and free riders by persuading them that guild cooperation serves the public good and by shaming deviant guild members as self seeking.

8 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, an analytic framework for examining the question of which voting rule multi-member courts should use, with reference to the well-known case of National Mutual Insurance Co v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 US 532 (1948), was presented.
Abstract: How should the views of individual judges on an appellate panel be combined to reach a decision in any particular case. Oddly enough, there has been comparatively little attention paid to this very fundamental question, notwithstanding the fact that there are (at least) two very different procedures judges could use, and that the choice between them may be outcome-determinative in many circumstances. In this paper, we set out an analytic framework for examining the question of which voting rule multi-member courts should use, with reference to the well-known case of National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 US 532 (1948), and demonstrate a number of fundamental flaws in the methods of outcome-voting used by most multi-member panels.

8 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: Examples of how regions faced with SARS turned to disease control strategies based on public health law, such as "personal control measures" like quarantine and isolation are discussed; weaknesses in nations' legal systems to frame balanced, coordinated and well-executed public health programs for rapid disease containment; and the responses of diverse populations to restrictive personal control measures are discussed.
Abstract: SARS was a reminder of the continuing threat of epidemic disease in the world. This paper discuss examples of how regions faced with SARS turned to disease control strategies based on public health law, such as "personal control measures" like quarantine and isolation; weaknesses in the ability of nations' legal systems to frame balanced, coordinated and well-executed public health programs for rapid disease containment; and the responses of diverse populations to restrictive personal control measures. The paper uses the experiences of governmental entities of Singapore, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Canada, and the United States to illustrate important public health law and preparedness challenges for infectious disease control. While the experiences of these nations may not perfectly apply in other nations, they represent a spectrum of political and legal cultures. The paper concludes with recommendations encouraging enhanced legal preparations for public health emergencies.

8 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: This article argued that human beings are moral and political animals, who are endowed with a moral faculty or sense of justice, which is not primarily a philosophical, political, or theological question, but an empirical question that belongs in principle in the cognitive and brain sciences, broadly construed.
Abstract: A striking feature of contemporary human rights scholarship is the extent to which it has turned its back on the idea that human rights can grounded in a theory of human nature. Philosophers, social scientists, and political and legal theorists thus frequently assert that the classical Enlightenment project of supplying a naturalistic foundation for human rights is dead. The main purpose of this contribution to a new book of essays on human rights is to rebut this pervasive skepticism. Drawing on recent work in the cognitive science of moral judgment, I defend one of the critical premises of ancient philosophy, Enlightenment Rationalism and the modern human rights movement alike: that human beings are moral and political animals, who are endowed with a moral faculty or sense of justice. The chapter thereby seeks to offer a new perspective on an old and venerable argument about the naturalistic foundation of human rights. This new perspective begins from the observation that whether human beings possess a common moral faculty is not primarily a philosophical, political, or theological question, but an empirical question that belongs in principle in the cognitive and brain sciences, broadly construed. The confident assertions of skeptics such as Michael Ignatieff, Richard Rorty, Gilbert Ryle, Alasdair MacIntyre, Richard Posner, Robert Bork, and other writers notwithstanding, one cannot therefore simply decide the matter from the armchair. On the contrary, probative evidence and sound scientific argument must be brought to bear. This new paradigm also begins from the recognition that two of the most significant intellectual developments of the past fifty years are the cognitive revolution in the sciences of mind, brain, and behavior and the human rights revolution in constitutional and international law. The former displaced the narrow forms of positivism and behaviorism that dominated academic philosophy and psychology during the first part of the twentieth century and prevented researchers from formulating coherent theories of the "distinct and original powers of the human mind" that had formed the basis of much Enlightenment jurisprudence, moral philosophy, and political theory. For its part, motivated by the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust and other familiar atrocities, the human rights revolution in constitutional and international law has dramatically extended the reach and application of basic moral and legal precepts to every corner of the globe. The central aim of the chapter is to bring these two influential movements into fruitful contact with one another by describing how researchers from a variety of disciplines (including experimental philosophy, developmental and social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, primatology, anthropology, comparative criminal law, and other fields) have begun to converge on a scientific theory of human moral cognition that, at least in its broad contours, bears a striking resemblance to the classical accounts of moral philosophy, natural jurisprudence, and the law of nations that reverberate throughout the ages. These classical accounts typically rest on the claim that an innate moral faculty and with it principles of justice, fairness, empathy, and solidarity are written into the very frame of human nature. These themes were particularly influential during the Enlightenment, when the modern human rights movement first emerged. It is precisely this set of ideas that modern cognitive science, liberated from the crippling methodological restrictions of positivism, behaviorism, historicism, and other discredited theoretical frameworks, has recently begun to explicate and to a substantial extent verify. This new trend in the science of human nature, I suggest, has potentially profound implications for the theory and practice of universal human rights.

8 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118