Showing papers on "Directive published in 1986"

Product safety and product liability — An analysis of the EEC Council Directive of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products

Abstract: After more than ten years of fierce European product liability debate, the Council has finally promulgated the Directive 85/374 in an attempt to harmonize Member State law about the responsibility for defective products. The directive starts out from the principle of strict liability, but allows certain exceptions mostly concerning the so-called “state of the art” which, however, according to the author should be narrowly interpreted. Compensation due to the consumer because of damage suffered from a defective product includes both personal injury and property damage, but does not expressly allow for pain and suffering. The directive gives Member States power to have (global) ceilings for personal injury compensation, and contains rigid limitations for property damages. Implementation of the directive must be undertaken by the Member States by August 1, 1988, but leaves it to their discretion to have different rules concerning liability for agricultural products and for development risks, thus putting law approximation in danger. In his conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the directive is less a means to protect the consumer in the event of damage than a means of regulating safety aspects of products freely circulating in the Common Market. It is the task of the judges — of the Member States and the European Court of Justice — to determine the safety standards of products and to harmonize these within the EEC.

Advance directives in family practice.

Abstract: Advance directives have emerged in medicine as an important method by which patients can express future treatment wishes. The major reasons medical professionals have been reluctant to use advance directives are not because of theoretical defects with advance directives, but because of procedural difficulties. Confusion over types of advance directives and their legal status will ease with increased knowledge of advance directives by health professionals. Additionally, that they are often formulated in ambiguous terms and under situations where the patient's competence is in question can be minimized. More widespread and effective use of advance directives will occur if the family physician takes an active role in identifying patients for whom an advance directive would be desirable, effectively communicating information about advance directives, advising their patients about the most effective way to state their directive in medically precise terminology, and explaining when necessary the patient's wishes to other medical specialists and family members.

Continuing debate over science and secrecy

Abstract: The academic community breathed a sign of relief when President Reagan signed a new national security decision directive, NSDD 189, exempting fundamental research from national security controls. Issued September 27, 1985, the one-paragraph statement begins with the welcome assertion that the Administration's policy is not to restrict the products of fundamental research. The statement adds that where national security interests do intrude upon fundamental research activities, classification will be the primary mechanism for control. However, a more careful reading of the directive, and of the cover memorandum circulated with it to Cabinet officers, reveals a loophole through which the Administration was once again shaking the reins of control. The innocuous phrase appeared at the very end of the directive, forbidding the placement of restrictions upon unclassified federally funded fundamental research except as provided in applicable US statutes. Expanding on this phrase, the cover memorandum emphasized that the directive preserved the ability of the agencies to control unclassified information using legislated authority provided expressly for that purpose in applicable US statutes. The memorandum made no mention of the need to preserve openness in scientific and technical communication or to exercise caution in controlling unclassified information.