Embolic Protection Devices: Choice

Henry, Michel; Henry, Isabelle; Polydorou, Antonios; Hugel, Michèle

doi:10.1002/9781444329803.ch23

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reparative justice is a distinct moral justification for compensating research-related injuries, in that it is a "special duty to redress injuries caused by a wrongful act" that is owed by the "party at fault for the injury." 72 The tort system may best accommodate claims for compensation that are caused by negligence or fault. Yet many (if not most) research-related injuries are not caused by wrongdoing or fault so reparative justice is not sufficient to justify compensation of all claims.…”

Section: Justice Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The failure to establish a compensation system in the U.S. can be at least partially attributed to "moral gridlock," 114 which Henry describes as a situation in which "articulation of numerous and sometimes disparate reasons for compensating injured research subjects actually results in incongruent obligations that favor different kinds of compensation systems." 115 In the U.S., lack of consensus about who should pay for research-related injuries may be a barrier to the establishment of clear and comprehensive regulation.…”

Section: Moral Gridlockmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal

Chapman¹,

Sukumaran²,

Tsegaye³

et al. 2019

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the U.S., there is no requirement for research sponsors to compensate human research subjects who experience injuries as a result of their participation. In this article, we review the moral justifications that compel the establishment of a better research-related injury compensation system. We explore how other countries and certain institutions within the U.S. have adopted various systems of compensation. The existence of these systems demonstrates both that the U.S. lags behind other nations in its protection of human research subjects and that the establishment of a compensation system is both practical and feasible. We then examine factors which have prevented the U.S. from establishing its own compensation system. We consider possible alternatives for the U.S. by examining the advantages and disadvantages of both established and proposed systems. We offer a new proposal that addresses the justice concerns which compel the establishment of a national compensation system, distributes the burdens of such a system on multiple stakeholders that benefit from research, and has the additional advantage of minimizing the administrative and logistical challenges associated with initiating such a system.

show abstract

Section: Justice Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Moral Gridlockmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal

Chapman¹,

Sukumaran²,

Tsegaye³

et al. 2019

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Penal Welfare and the New Human Trafficking Intervention Courts

Gruber

Cohen²,

Mogulescu

2016

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the fall of 2013, New York State's Chief Judge, Jonathan Lippman, announced a "revolutionary" statewide initiative to create Human Trafficking Intervention Courts (HTICs). The initiative occurred amidst a burgeoning consensus that prostitution is human trafficking and women who engage in prostitution are largely victims of exploitation and violence. Given the HTICs' ambition to, in Lippman's words, "eradicate the epidemic of human trafficking," and the convergent view of prostitution as trafficking, one might think the HTICs are courts that prosecute traffickers, where victim-witnesses enjoy special protections. In fact, the HTICs are criminal diversion courts where mostly female defendants are prosecuted for prostitution offenses but offered mandated services in lieu of criminal conviction and jail. The HTICs are thus a puzzle. Why have so many commentators heralded them as the model approach to prostitution/trafficking when they involve the arrest, prosecution, and even incarceration of prostitution defendants, who are presumed to be victims? A key piece of this puzzle is a phenomenon we call "penal welfare," that is, states' growing practice of using criminal courts to provide social services and benefits. In an era in which "mass incarceration" is a familiar term and tough-on-crime and broken windows ideologies are falling into disfavor, penal welfare enables entrenched institutions of criminal law to continue to function despite a growing crisis in public confidence. Based on a qualitative empirical study of the HTICs, we caution that because of their welfarist bent, the courts may sustain arrests and prosecutions of the presumptively victimized women they seek to protect, stunt the development of alternate forms of assistance and resources, and reinforce stigmatizing ideologies and discourses.

show abstract

'Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic': The Constitutionality of Congressional deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V

Wright

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within a year or two, the thirty-eighth state is likely to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), setting up an unprecedented constitutional challenge. 2 The ERA was proposed with a seven-year deadline in the resolving clause, establishing the mode of ratification. 3 That was a shift from earlier precedents in which a deadline had been placed in the text of the amendment proposal itself. 4 Article V is annoyingly silent on the issue of congressional deadlines in amendment proposals, and the Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of a deadline that could void an otherwise properly ratified amendment. 5 The practice of placing deadlines on amendment proposals began in 1917 with the Eighteenth Amendment, but has not been consistent since. 6 Deadlines appear to have originated as an effort to torpedo amendments by opponents, but have since become almost pro forma. 7 Some argue deadlines ensure finality and closure; 8 1 Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 453 (1939). * Clarence J. TeSelle Professor of Law, University of Florida, Levin College of Law. I would like to thank Professor Michael Wolf for his comments on this Article. I would also like to thank Professor Jon Mills and Dean Laura Rosenbury for their support of this research, and especially Winsome McIntosh for her unending devotion to the ERA. I would also like to thank Adam Bent and Justin Gray for their invaluable research. Despite their prodigious work, all errors are mine.

show abstract

Embolic Protection Devices: Choice

Cited by 3 publications

References 51 publications

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal

The Quest for Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the United States: A New Proposal

Penal Welfare and the New Human Trafficking Intervention Courts

'Great Variety of Relevant Conditions, Political, Social and Economic': The Constitutionality of Congressional deadlines on Amendment Proposals under Article V

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About