Mississippi College School of Law
Not a member yet
1198 research outputs found
Sort by
DISCRIMINATION AND DISPARITY: VIOLATING OLMSTEAD V. L.C. DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE PSYCHIATRICALLY VULNERABLE AND FOSTERS RACIAL/ETHNIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC MENTAL HEALTH DISPARITIES
Full text linkMississippi is one of several states still in violation of federal laws by unnecessarily institutionalizing individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities (“psychiatric vulnerabilities”) and by failing to offer sufficient community-based mental health services. This Comment uses Mississippi’s broken mental healthcare system as a case study to reveal how violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 597 (1999), not only discriminates against the psychiatrically vulnerable but also fosters racial/ethnic and socioeconomic mental health disparities. Complying with these federal mandates will provide individuals with psychiatric vulnerabilities with the least-restrictive treatment possible, ensuring such individuals are not unnecessarily institutionalized against their will. Furthermore, expanding access to affordable community-based services will increase racial/ethnic and socioeconomic mental healthcare parity. Therefore, this Comment implores states to heed the following call to action: stop violating people’s rights, and put an end to discrimination and disparity.
To comply with the ADA and Olmstead and address these disparities, states such as Mississippi must increase access to community-based mental health services and decrease reliance on institutional care. The following five actions can aid compliance efforts: (1) create an Olmstead plan with measurable goals; (2) increase and reallocate funding for community- based services; (3) improve patient discharge plans and collaboration among state actors; (4) increase telehealth accessibility for mental health services; and (5) expand Medicaid mental health coverage and eligibility
Progress as Impact: A Contemporary View of Copyright and Patent Clause
Full text linkThis paper argues that the incentive-welfare functions of patents and copyrights would be enhanced by embracing a more purpose-driven view of inventions and creative expressions. This paper is divided into three parts to show how conceptualizing “progress” as the betterment of society through the use of impactful intellectual property will ultimately benefit both the creator and recipient of the work so that the incentive welfare function of the law is maximized. Part I of the paper explores the concept of progress as a goal undergirding the patent and copyright systems and shows how the conventional understanding of progress as “creation” or “dissemination” created a widespread view that patents and copyrights are, in essence, legal protections from free-riding market competitors and users of the work. Part II demonstrates how legal protectionism of intellectual property sidelines more productive and lucrative uses of intellectual property to create business value and social impact which, in turn, produce market success, rewards, and the incentives intellectual property owners need to continue to invest in socially desirable and impactful activities. Part III discusses how intellectual property producers can build business value into their copyrights and patents so that their markets recognize and reward them for value-creation and impact and how the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals serve as a metric to assess impact. This article concludes that it is timely and appropriate to expand the understanding of progress to incorporate other concerns for social development and impact as the sole instrumental goal of the copyright and patent systems
