Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Appendix 11H of Mergers Acquisitions and Tender Offers (MATO) and Appendix 1J of Corporate Valuation in M&A (CORP VAL): SEC and Regulated Documents Regarding the Proposed Acquisition in 2022 of Twitter, Inc. by Affiliates of Elon R. Musk
No full textAppendix 11H to Professor Thompson\u27s book Mergers, Acquisitions and Tender Offers;
and
Appendix 1J to Professor Thompson\u27s forthcoming book Corporate Valuation in M&A.
Both published by the Practicing Law Institute
To Explain or Not to Explain?—Artificial Intelligence Explainability in Clinical Decision Support Systems
No full textExplainability for artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine is a hotly debated topic. Our paper presents a review of the key arguments in favor and against explainability for AI-powered Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) applied to a concrete use case, namely an AI-powered CDSS currently used in the emergency call setting to identify patients with life-threatening cardiac arrest. More specifically, we performed a normative analysis using socio-technical scenarios to provide a nuanced account of the role of explainability for CDSSs for the concrete use case, allowing for abstractions to a more general level. Our analysis focused on three layers: technical considerations, human factors, and the designated system role in decision-making. Our findings suggest that whether explainability can provide added value to CDSS depends on several key questions: technical feasibility, the level of validation in case of explainable algorithms, the characteristics of the context in which the system is implemented, the designated role in the decision-making process, and the key user group(s). Thus, each CDSS will require an individualized assessment of explainability needs and we provide an example of how such an assessment could look like in practice
The Neuroscience of Qualified Immunity
No full textQualified immunity not only absolves public officials from accountability for the damages caused when they deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights; by virtue of companion doctrines shielding governmental entities from liability, conferral of immunity leaves the victim to bear the loss. Therefore, it is essential that the contours of immunity be carefully calibrated to align with its intended purposes. The United States Supreme Court has continuously expanded immunity to protect the exercise of discretion where, albeit acting in violation of constitutional norms, the official could have reasonably believed their conduct was constitutional. This Article exposes the implicit assumptions as to the operation of the brain that underpin the evolution of the Court’s immunity jurisprudence. It then explains how the Court’s suppositions are refuted by recent findings in the field of neuroscience and proposes reforms that would harmonize immunity with the true workings of the minds of government officials
The Rise of the Decanal Collective Voice
No full textThe United States is a nation of laws, and its Constitution and the rule of law have allowed it to confront and successfully navigate many threats to democracy throughout the nation’s complex history, including a Civil War. All of these threats challenged the nation in various ways, but never has there been a challenge to the truth of our elections like what happened on January 6, 2021.
The Insurrection represents a turning point in America’s history. In addition to the unprecedented assault on the U.S. Capitol, members of the government sought to undermine an election and supported an attack on the government.
Exposing the issues that led us to January 6, Beyond Imagination? brings together 14 deans of American law schools to examine the day’s events and how we got there, from a legal perspective, in hopes of moving the nation forward towards healing and a recommitment to the rule of law and the Constitution.https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/fac-books/1006/thumbnail.jp
Designing Assessments
No full textAssessing student learning is imperative for ensuring that you are meeting your learning objectives and that students are meeting legal research competencies. Designing effective assessments can be a daunting task, particularly when you are new to teaching legal research and do not yet have an idea of what will work well for assessing your students. In this session, we will cover different types of formative and summative assessments, where to look for inspiration for designing assessments, evaluating whether an assessment is successful, and what do to when an assessment does not go as planned
Resuciating Consent
No full textThe scholarly focus on autonomy in healthcare decision making largely has been on information about, rather than consent to, medical treatment. There is an assumption that if a patient has complete information and understanding about a proposed medical intervention, then they will choose the treatment their physician thinks is best. True respect for patient autonomy means that treatment refusal, whether informed or not, should always be an option. But there is evidence that healthcare providers sometimes ignore treatment refusals and resort to force to treat patients over their contemporaneous objection, which may be facilitated by the incapacity exception to informed consent re-quirements. This Article uses the case of treatment over objection to resusci-tate analysis of consent. This Article asserts that the nature of autonomy in medical decision making is misunderstood, which can lead to wrongful use of the incapacity exception and subsequent harm. Autonomy has become errone-ously conflated with an individual’s capacity for rational decision making, obscuring the reality that the exercise of autonomy is mediated by the body. That is, autonomy is not solely cognitive, but also corporeal. Indeed, bodily integrity is a necessary component of autonomy, and so violating bodily in-tegrity by treating patients over their objection is inconsistent with respect for autonomy. Further, when healthcare providers violate patients’ bodily integri-ty, there can be significant harms to wellbeing. Moreover, if providers misuse the incapacity exception in order to treat patients over their objection, this nullifies informed consent law. This Article argues that patients should not be treated over their objection even when providers do not perceive refusals to be rational because such treatment is inconsistent with respect for patient auton-omy and bodily integrity, promotion of wellbeing, and maintenance of the rule of law. In order to prevent or remedy treatment over objection, this Arti-cle argues that states should adopt laws that provide adults with absolute le-gal capacity to refuse medical treatment unless a court overrides their deci-sion. The proposed law thus would prevent healthcare providers from disqual-ifying their patients from refusing treatment even when there are questions about the patient’s decisional capacity