9571 research outputs found
Sort by
Russia’s Replacement: Kazakhstan as Europe’s Risky but Crucial New Oil Supplier Amidst EU Sanctions and Embargoes on Russian Oil
Get PDFSnake Oil and Second Chances: A Legal Analysis of Political Party Switching and a Framework for Stakeholder Remedies in North Carolina
Get PDF
Fair Admissions, Fair Decisions, and Fair Outcomes: An Analysis of Algorithmic Bias in Education, Employment, Healthcare, and Housing
Get PDF
Children at Work, Parental Rights–And Rhetoric
No full textThis Article examines the resurgence of child labor law rollbacks across the United States and argues that legislators and business‑aligned advocates increasingly deploy the rhetoric of “parental rights” to mask deregulatory efforts that primarily advance industry interests rather than children’s wellbeing or family autonomy. Tracing the historical tension among parental authority, state parens patriae power, and children’s welfare, the Article shows how contemporary invocations of parental rights—echoing arguments used a century ago to resist child labor reforms—operate as political cover for expanding hazardous work, extending hours, and reducing oversight in ways that endanger children and undermine their educational and economic prospects. The authors demonstrate that these measures emerge amid labor shortages and are driven largely by business groups seeking cheaper, more compliant workers, with parental‑rights framings obscuring these motives. The Article concludes by proposing strategies to counter this rhetoric, strengthen enforcement of existing protections, and reassert the state’s long‑recognized role in safeguarding children in a post‑industrial economy
Medical Board Discipline of Physicians for Spreading Medical Misinformation
No full textIMPORTANCE False medical information disseminated dangerously during the COVID-19 pandemic, with certain physicians playing a surprisingly prominent role. Medical boards engendered widespread criticism for not imposing forceful sanctions, but considerable uncertainty remains about how the professional licensure system regulates physician-spread misinformation.
OBJECTIVE To compare the level of professional discipline of physicians for spreading medical misinformation relative to discipline for other offenses.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study analyzed and coded publicly reported medical board disciplinary actions in the 5 most populous US states. The analysis included data from January 1, 2020, through May 30, 2023, for California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania and from January 1, 2020, through March 30, 2022, for Texas.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Medical board disciplinary proceedings that resulted in some form of sanction were analyzed. Codes were assigned for the different types of offenses relied on by medical boards for imposing physician discipline.
RESULTS Among 3128 medical board disciplinary proceedings in the 5 most populous states, spreading misinformation to the community was the least common reason for medical board discipline of physicians (6 [0.1%] of all identified offenses). Two reasons tied for third least common: patient-directed misinformation (21 [0.3%]) and inappropriate advertising or patient solicitation (21 [0.3%]). The frequency of misinformation conduct was exponentially lower than more common reasons for discipline, such as physician negligence (1911 [28.7%]), problematic record-keeping (990 [14.9%]), and inappropriate prescribing (901 [13.5%]). Patient-directed misinformation provided a basis for discipline 3 times as often as spreading misinformation to the community. The frequency of disciplinary actions for any reasons related to COVID-19 care, even if not about misinformation, was also quite low (10 [0.2%]). Sanctions in misinformation actions tended to be relatively light.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The frequency of discipline for physician-spread misinformation observed in this cross-sectional study was quite low despite increased salience and medical board warnings since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic about the dangers of physicians spreading falsehoods. These findings suggest that there is a serious disconnect between regulatory guidance and enforcement and that medical boards relied on spreading misinformation to patients as a reason for discipline 3 times more frequently than disseminating falsehoods to the public. These results shed light on important policy concerns about professional licensure, including why, under current patient-centered frameworks, this form of regulation may be particularly ill-suited to address medical misinformation
