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.
Topics: Supreme court, Global health, Public health, Health policy, Human rights
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: It is argued that the uniqueness of WTS makes ABM a promising tool to be used in WTS-related research, as well as understanding use of other tobacco products.
Abstract: Objectives Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging public health crisis, particularly among youth and young adults. Different from the use of other tobacco products and e-cigarettes, WTS tends to be a social activity occurring among friends or persons associated with social networks. In this paper, we review a potential strategy for WTS-related research. Methods As a bottom-up computational model, agent-based modeling (ABM) can simulate the actions and interactions of agents, as well as the dynamic interactions between agents and their environments, to gain an understanding of the functioning of a system. ABM is particularly useful for incorporating the influence of social networks in WTS, and capturing people's space-time activity and the spatial distribution of WTS venues. Results Comprehensive knowledge of WTS-related behaviors at the individual level is needed to take advantage of ABM and use it to examine policies such as the interaction between WTS and cigarette smoking and the effect of flavors used in waterpipe tobacco. Longitudinal and WTS-specific surveys and laboratory experiments are particularly helpful to understand WTS basic mechanisms and elicit individual preferences, respectively. Conclusions We argue that the uniqueness of WTS makes ABM a promising tool to be used in WTS-related research, as well as understanding use of other tobacco products.
2 citations
••
TL;DR: This Viewpoint discusses ways that evidence-based laws can address health disparities and halt the documented reduction of life expectancy across socioeconomic groups.
Abstract: This Viewpoint discusses ways that evidence-based laws can address health disparities and halt the documented reduction of life expectancy across socioeconomic
2 citations
•
2 citations
•
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that climate change will also disrupt fundamental ideas about real property and that the growing need for human management of dynamic natural forces, distorted by greenhouse gas emissions, will erode the foundations of physical stability and owner autonomy that shape basic doctrines of property law.
Abstract: Human-induced climate change threatens perilous risks for our physical homes and also poses a serious challenge to our legal institutions. Several scholars already have remarked on the disruption climate change has brought to specific legal areas, such as tort, standing, and national security. This essay argues that climate change will also disrupt fundamental ideas about real property. It maintains that the growing need for human management of dynamic natural forces, distorted by greenhouse gas emissions, will erode the foundations of physical stability and owner autonomy that shape basic doctrines of property law.
2 citations
••
TL;DR: The Decline of Cause as discussed by the authors focuses on the diminishing importance of causality in law and moral philosophy, and argues that the outcome of an act does not and should not affect our assessment of the moral quality of the act.
Abstract: Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson's provocative article, 'The Decline of Cause,' focuses on the diminishing importance of causation in law and moral philosophy. In this reply, I suggest answers to some of the questions Professor Thomson raises. Professor Thomson's article revolves around various forms of a classic dilemma: two persons take equal care but, through chance, their actions produce different results. Does the outcome of their actions matter in a moral assessment of those actions? Professor Thomson first sets out what the styles as the Kantian and 'moral sophisticates" position that the outcome of an act does not and should not effect our assessment of the moral quality of the act. Subsequently, however, Thomson rejects the absolute nature of this position. She concludes that, in cases of acts blameworthy in the first instance - i.e., blameworthy on some ground independent of the actual outcome - resulting harm or near harm does and should render our moral assessment more negative than it would be absent such result. Professor Thomson confesses herself to be largely at a loss to explain why we hold these moral intuitions, and thus she does little more than posit - rather than explain - them. In the first part of my reply to Professor Thomson, I explain why the reasoning that leads her to reject the Kantian position is flawed - why, in fact, her own arguments lead to the conclusion that the Kantian position is correct and that outcome does not matter in our moral assessment of a person's acts. In the second part of my reply, I accept for the sake of argument Professor Thomson's position on Kant and the 'moral sophisticates,' and I address her ultimate intuitive conclusion that outcome does matter, but only in cases of fault in the first instance. I submit that I can offer Professor Thomson reasons for her intuited conclusion, reasons which explain not only why outcome matters in cases of fault in the first instance, but why it matters in all cases - including cases of no fault in the first instance.
2 citations
Authors
Showing all 585 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lawrence O. Gostin | 75 | 879 | 23066 |
Michael J. Saks | 38 | 155 | 5398 |
Chirag Shah | 34 | 341 | 5056 |
Sara J. Rosenbaum | 34 | 425 | 6907 |
Mark Dybul | 33 | 61 | 4171 |
Steven C. Salop | 33 | 120 | 11330 |
Joost Pauwelyn | 32 | 154 | 3429 |
Mark Tushnet | 31 | 267 | 4754 |
Gorik Ooms | 29 | 124 | 3013 |
Alicia Ely Yamin | 29 | 122 | 2703 |
Julie E. Cohen | 28 | 63 | 2666 |
James G. Hodge | 27 | 225 | 2874 |
John H. Jackson | 27 | 102 | 2919 |
Margaret M. Blair | 26 | 75 | 4711 |
William W. Bratton | 25 | 112 | 2037 |