13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Stealing Organs?
Get PDFEvery nine minutes, a new person joins a waitlist for an organ transplant, and every day, seventeen people die waiting for an organ that will never come. Because the need for organ transplants far outstrips the number of available organs, the policies and rules governing organ allocation in the United States are critically important and highly contentious. Recently, proponents of a new allocation system—one focused more on sharing organs across the nation instead of allocating organs primarily to local transplant candidates—have gained ground. Bolstered by two separate lawsuits in the past five years, advocates of greater national sharing have succeeded in changing the allocation rules for lungs and livers, with policies for other organs in development.
This Article engages with the debate over whether national or local patients should receive priority under organ allocation systems. Focusing specifically on liver allocation, it provides an innovative empirical analysis of the primary arguments and evidence that those in favor of national allocation policies have used to support their preferred policies—that the sickest patients should receive donated organs first, regardless of their location. While this argument is both ethically and intuitively appealing, those opposed to greater national organ sharing have argued that measures of “sickest patients” are both flawed and subject to manipulation. Greater national organ sharing can also exacerbate existing inequities in the organ transplant system as wealthy urban areas generally import organs from poorer and more rural parts of the country.
Analyzing a dataset of every patient waitlisted for a liver between 2002 and 2017, this Article reveals, for the first time, a deeply troubling reality. The results of the analysis suggest that transplant professionals have routinely manipulated the waitlist priority of their patients. Moreover, this manipulation occurs more often in areas of the country that argue most vehemently in favor of national allocation policies. This Article argues that these recent policy changes, favoring greater national organ sharing, are extensions of the manipulative tactics revealed by the empirical analysis. Given the results of the empirical analysis, this Article argues that the time has come to formalize local priority in organ allocation policy by amending the National Organ Transplant Act. This amendment would roll back recent changes to promote greater national organ sharing that have been justified with manipulated evidence and prevent organs from moving from poorer to wealthier areas of the country. This rollback represents an important first step in combating inequities in the transplant system
Milliken’s Legacy in the ‘eLearning Era’—Redefining Remedies to Address Amplified Academic Achievement Gaps in America’s K-12 Public Schools
Get PDF
Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits
Get PDFThis Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment precedent for internet platforms.
We identify the similarities between social media platforms and more traditional venues for speech (like mail, malls, and television) but ultimately conclude there are critical differences that break the analogies. We then compare the role of social media platforms to basic internet service providers to better understand how the line between speech participants and mere conduits should be drawn in an online context. We find that First Amendment caselaw and the reasoning that flows through it would categorize platforms like Twitter and Facebook as speech participants. Next, we consider whether public perception of platforms standing in the role of a “public square” should significantly alter the First Amendment protections afforded to platforms, arguing that it should not. Finally, we argue that online platforms are their own free speech creature that deserve strong protection from government intervention in hosting and curation choices. However, they may be good targets for transparency requirements
State Leadership vs. Lawyers\u27 Entrepreneurship: The Globalization Trajectories of Chinese Legal Professionals Under the Belt & Road Initiative
Get PDFBased on the analysis of the online profiles of 205 BRI Talent Bank lawyers as accredited by China\u27s national bar association, this article generates important empirical knowledge about the approaches and processes that a nation-state may use in directing the internationalization of legal professionals. In addition to designing the general roadmap and offering broad incentives, the state has demonstrated a much more handson approach. By collecting the so-called state-adjacent lawyers and commissioning them to take some concrete first steps stipulated in the roadmap, the Chinese state effectively envisions them as role models for other lawyers to follow to ensure that its policy goals regarding the BRI are achieved in the Chinese legal profession. Such vision, however, is not very well-realized which is particularly evidenced by the zero-accession rate of Talent Bank law firms into the state-led BRI Lawyers Association initiative. These findings reaffirm that Chinese lawyers are calculative and pragmatic entrepreneurs who know how to strike the balance between winning legitimacy from the state and pursuing their own internationalization trajectories based on their own needs and competence. Perhaps contrary to the expectations of the state, such an image does not seem to change much even regarding a group of lawyers that have close ties with and/or hold official approvals from the state
La liberté d’expression aux États-Unis et en France
No full textA chapter from the Ministry\u27s report, RÉPUBLIQUE ÉCOLE LAÏCITÉhttps://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facbooks/1302/thumbnail.jp
