Tales from the Organ Trade - HBO Documentary

Here is a fascinating new HBO documentary:  Tales from the Organ Trade.  



Every 60 minutes a human organ is sold illicitly.  Can you put yourself in the place of a buyer?  A seller? What would you do if your life depended on it?  This riveting, gritty, and unflinching film explores the shadowy life and death world of international black market organ trafficking, delving deeply into the legal, and ethical issues that swirl around its center, its fringes, and its darkest depths.

Aintree Hospital v. James - UK Supreme Court Holds Stopping Life Support in Patient's Best Interest

Today, the UK Supreme Court ruled that doctors should be allowed to withhold life-sustaining treatment where it would be “futile” to continue it.  Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v David James and Ors [2013] UKSC 67.  A copy of the opinion is available here. 

BACKGROUND
As I wrote in December, musician David James suffered complications from cancer.  He was given six minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in August 2012 after a heart attack and ended up in a minimally conscious state, although he remained responsive to others.  The medical assessment concluded there was less than one per cent chance of Mr James being discharged from the unit.  

The Hospital applied to the Court of Protection for a declaration that, if James’ condition deteriorated, it need not offer him “futile and burdensome” treatment (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, renal replacement treatment, or invasive support for chronic low blood pressure).  The trust asked for a declaration that James lacked capacity to consent to or refuse treatment of any kind and that in the event of a clinical deterioration it would be in his best interests for certain invasive treatment to be withheld (including CPR).

TRIAL COURT

Mr. Justice Peter Jackson refused the hospital's declaration, stating:  “Although Mr. James’s condition is in many respects grim, I am not persuaded that treatment would be futile or overly burdensome or that there is no prospect of recovery.”  

Justice Jackson continued:  “Although the burdens of treatment are very great indeed, they have to be weighed against the benefits of a continued existence.”  He added that recovery did not mean a return to full health but the resumption of a quality of life that James himself would consider worthwhile.  David James died a few days later, on December 31, 2012. 


APPELLATE COURT
As I wrote in March 2013, the appellate court ruled that the trial judge had adopted a “too narrow a view of futility."  The trial judge was “wrong to concentrate on the usefulness of the treatment in coping with the crisis and curing the disease… and not also to be concerned instead with whether the treatment was worthwhile in the interests of the general well-being.”

The appellate court further concluded that futility should be judged by whether it secures a therapeutic benefit to the patient. “The treatment must, standing alone or with other medical care, have the real prospect of curing or at least palliating the life threatening disease or illness."  

Under the Mental Capacity Act code of practice, it was “up to the doctor or healthcare professional providing treatment to assess whether the treatment is life-sustaining in each particular situation.”  “Here we were necessarily dealing with a situation where life was ebbing away. In the context, therefore, ‘no prospect of recovery’ means no prospect of recovering such a state of good health as will avert the looming prospect of death if the life-sustaining treatment is given.”



SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court has affirmed the intermediate appellate court.  But the SC significantly revised application of the best interest analysis that the court of appeal had employed.  More on this in a subsequent post.

Last Right: Assisted Suicide in Canada

Yesterday, CBC began a new documentary series on assisted suicide.

Futility in the ICU: Prevention, Procedure, and Policy

If you are at CHEST 2013, I hope to see you at "Futility in the ICU: Prevention, Procedure, and Policy" on Wednesday, October 30, 2013, from 7:30 AM - 9:00 AM in W178b McCormick Place.  Here is a link to the schedule for session 10232.

• Ethical Principles at Stake in Futility Disputes -- Gabriel Bosslet


• Futility Legislation: Lessons From Texas -- Richard Castriotta


• Medicolegal Aspects to Futility in the ICU -- Thaddeus Pope


• Prevention of Futility Disputes in the ICU -- Dee Ford

Over the last 20 years, critical care has witnessed substantial change in ethical thought on limitations to aggressive care. Initially the notion that limitations could be placed on life-sustaining treatments was rejected based on the principle of life as a paramount value. Eventually patients won the freedom to decline undesired treatments in landmark court cases on the basis of patient autonomy. 



Today the majority of ICU deaths are preceded by withholding or withdrawing some aspect if intensive care. In contrast to previous decades, the ethical challenges ICU clinicians struggle with currently center around cases when ongoing critical care has been deemed unlikely to provide substantial or enduring clinical benefit to the patient, but the patient or their surrogate desires to continue aggressive care. Thus, the issue of medical futility has generated much discourse and explicit policies and procedures to cope with perceived futility and conflicts around goals of care.

Consent to Withdrawal of Life Support: What the Supreme Court Said in Cuthbertson v Rasouli

Mark Handelman, an expert on the CCB, and a partner at the Toronto based law firm Whaley Estate Litigation, has just posted a 30-page analysis of the SCC decision:  "Consent to Withdrawal of Life Support: What the Supreme Court Said in Cuthbertson v Rasouli."

William Buckley on Dying & Death

"The greatest enemy of older people is young doctors. . . .  They are determined to keep you alive, irrespective if you want to be. There isn't a living will written in language so commandeering that you can deny them of their resources."

10- Year Anniversary of Florida Intervention in Schiavo Case

Tomorrow is the 10th anniversary of Florida's intervention in the Schiavo case.  (HT: ABA Journal)



In 1998, after eight years watching his wife Terri in a persistent vegetative state, Michael Schiavo petitioned a Florida court to remove her feeding tubes.  But Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, objected, starting a battle that endured for more than a decade.



Under a court order to do so, doctors first removed Schiavo’s feeding tubes in April 2001.  Two days later, a different court ordered them reinserted.  After many more rounds in various courts, on Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2003, the tubes were removed again. 



Public officials initially expressed reluctance to intrude into a private family affair.  But wide-scale public pressure prompted Florida legislators to act.  Gov. Jeb Bush added the issue to a special session of the Florida legislature.  After two days lawmakers produced a short bill that applied only to Schiavo.  On Oct. 20 at 10:10 p.m., the Florida House passed the bill with no legal analysis or committee hearings.  The Senate approved it 17 hours later, and at 4:30 p.m. Bush signed it into law.  Two hours later, state officials removed Schiavo from her hospice to a Clearwater hospital, where feeding tubes were reinserted.



Nearly a year later, a unanimous Florida Supreme Court declared “Terri’s Law” an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers.  The Schindlers sought federal intervention and received a sympathetic response on Capitol Hill.  Subpoenas were issued.  A bill granting federal jurisdiction was passed.  Court challenges were filed. But the results proved the same.  After the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta denied all appeals, Schiavo’s feeding tubes were removed for the third and final time. 



On March 31, 2005, 13 days after the tubes were removed—more than 15 years after she was stricken—Terri Schiavo died.

In re Tschumy - Who Guards the Guardians? Courts or Ethics Committees?

This summer, Minnesota joined a handful of other states that have given healthcare ethics committees "gatekeeping" power that was previously exercised by state government officials.  This week, the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging that rule.  



In 2012, a Minnesota probate court held that court-appointed guardians do not have the authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment unless the court specifically grants them that power.  



The Hennepin County court had appointed a guardian for Jeffers Tschumy in 2008.  In April 2012, Tschumy suffered a cardiac arrest after choking on some food at his group home.  This resulted in irreversible brain injury leaving Tschumy in a persistent vegetative state.  Clinicians at Abbott Northwestern Hospital determined that further medical interventions would not be appropriate.  The HEC similarly determined that Tschumy could not benefit from further intensive treatment.  Tschumy’s guardian agreed.    But despite this consensus, the hospital filed a motion to clarify the guardian’s authority.   



While the court authorized the guardian to consent to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, it cautioned that its specific authorization would always be required.  The court explained that because of the “time gap” between the commencement of a guardianship and the possible need for that guardian to make an end-of-life decision on behalf of the ward, judges could not “practically evaluate potential guardians for the ability to make an end-of-life decision.”   Moreover, guardians “rarely (if ever) receive training on end-of-life issues.”   The court concluded that clinicians must “involve the judicial system - to provide experienced and impartial examination and evaluation of termination decisions.” 



But in 2013, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court.  The appellate court determined that judicial oversight is unnecessary when a medical ethics committee has already concurred with the treatment plan of the ward’s physicians.   It explained:  

Although courts are experienced in making reasoned and impartial decisions, doctors and medical ethics committees have the most appropriate knowledge and expertise to evaluate the potential for a ward's long-term recovery and quality of life and advising a guardian on end-of-life decisionmaking.

The Court of Appeals endorsed “a private, medically based model of decisionmaking,”  holding that HECs, not courts, are the best checkpoints on guardian decisions to stop life-sustaining treatment.

Lights, Coma, Action!

Cavin Balaster has started a new kickstarter campaign entitled Lights, Coma, Action! 



This campaign is aimed to help Cavin not only write a book about his life before and after a major coma but also to help him create awareness for anyone who is going through a similar experience.

Cuthbertson v. Rasouli - Decision from Supreme Court of Canada

Here is the 94-page decision from the Supreme Court of Canada in Cuthbertson v. Rasouli.  

(I have been at a conference all day and am just now starting to read the decision at the airport.  Analysis and commentary to follow soon.)  

Pope on Medical Futility

Starting tomorrow, I will be speaking and writing about medical futility quite a lot over the next few weeks.

1. Tomorrow, I am at a Dispute Resolution and Healthcare conference at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


2. Next week, I am participating in two sessions covering medical futility at the American Society of Bioethics & Humanities (ASBH) in Atlanta, Georgia. 


3. Also this month, I am presenting on the Futility in the ICU: Prevention, Procedure, and Policy at the American College of Chest Physicians in Chicago, Illinois.


4. In November, I am presenting on medical futility at an ethics committee summit at the University of Minnesota.


5. And in December, I am presenting ethics grand rounds on medical futility at Regions Hospital in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Over this same time period (before the end of the year), I am also looking forward to presenting at:

1. Bioethics, Health Policy, and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Age of Obamacare at Cardozo Law in New York.


2. DMOST: Delaware Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment at Christiana Hospital in Newark, Delaware.


3. Arger v. Renown Health, Washoe County Court, in Reno, Nevada.

Cuthbertson v. Rasouli - Welcome Appellate Court Guidance

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court of Canada will issue its decision in Cuthbertson v. Rasouli.  



I will be commenting on the decision over the next few weeks.  But apart from the merits of the medical futility dispute, I want to commend the court for even taking and deciding the case.



Too often, appellate courts have been ducking their duties to decide these sorts of disputes on grounds of mootness.  For example, recall the U.S. case of Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital.  More recently, the Wisconsin Supreme Court avoided deciding an end-of-life treatment issue involving the mature minor doctrine.  



In the lower courts, the Rasouli case had been framed as one in which treatment was in appropriate, because he was in a persistent vegetative case.  But even after Rasouli was re-diagnosed as being in a minimally conscious state, the Supreme Court refused to dismiss the case.



We need guidance in this area.  End-of-life issues are too politically hot for legislatures.  Appellate courts must fill the policy void.

Amanda Bennett - The Cost of Hope

The Cost of Hope (Random House)

Ethics & Health Policy of Dialyzing a Patient in a Persistent Vegetative State

In a new article in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, the authors discuss how continued dialysis violates ethical and legal principles of care in patients in a persistent vegetative state.



Professional guidelines have long recommended against offering dialysis to such patients.  But perhaps we are moving to a stronger position that nephrologists should not administer it even when demanded.  

Five Wishes Online - FREE

In honor of the 15th anniversary of the Five Wishes advance directive, Aging with Dignity is offering FREE uses of its Five Wishes Online resource for a limited time.  



This is a $5 value.  There are currently 20 million copies of Five Wishes in national circulation.

Bioethics, Health Policy, and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Age of Obamacare

Monday, November 18th, 2013, at Cardozo Law School

Opening Keynote Speech

• Debra Gerardi

Panel 1: Clinical Ethics Consultation

• Nancy Dubler (moderator)


• Autumn Fiester


• Thaddeus Pope


• Charity Scott

Lunch Keynote Speech

• Arthur Caplan, “Rationing Evidence and Obamacare”

Panel 2: Obamacare and ADR

• Michelle Skipper (moderator)


• Mindy Hatton


• Michael Kosnitzky


• Joe Miller

Panel 3: End-of-Life Decision Making

• Carol Liebman (moderator)


• Edward Bergman


• Nancy Berlinger


• Ellen Waldman

Closing Keynote Speech

• Adrienne Asch

Supreme Court of Canada to Issue Cuthberston v. Rasouli Judgment on Oct. 18

The Supreme Court of Canada just announced that it will issue its judgment in Cuthbertson v. Rasouli at 9:45 EST on Friday, October 18, 2013.



Here is the Court's summary of the case:

The respondent is in a coma.  The appellants, who are his physicians, seek to withdraw life‑sustaining treatment and to administer palliative care.  The respondent’s substitute decision‑maker under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, refuses to consent to withdrawing life‑sustaining treatment.

The appellants acknowledge that they require consent to administer palliative care but they believe that they do not need consent to withdraw life‑sustaining measures that are no longer medically indicated.  At issue is whether the appellants require consent or a determination from the Consent and Capacity Board that withdrawing life support is in the respondent’s best interests.

Minnesota End-of-Life Care CLE in October

Minnesota Healthcare Roundtable discussion on Advance Care Planning

Thursday, October 24, 2013, from 1:00 to 4:00

Minnesota Physician Publishing 

• Ed Ratner, MD, University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics


• Suzanne M. Scheller, Esq., Scheller Legal Solutions LLC


• Cheryl Stephens, PhD, MBA - President, CEO, Community Health Information Collaborative


• Tomás Valdivia, MD, MS - CEO, Lumināt. 

Guardianships and End-of-Life Care – The Tschumy Case – A Review of the Legal Implications of the Tschumy Case and the Scope of Guardianship Authority as it Relates to End-of-Life Care

Thursday, October 31, 2013, from 2:45 to 3:15

Minnesota CLE Elder Law Institute

• Robert A. McLeod on the guardian’s authority over medical care for the ward; the court’s required vs. discretionary involvement in end-of-life care; and the implications of the Tschumy decision on a guardian’s authority over a ward’s medical care.

Carter v. Canada - Appellate Opinion

In June 2012, I called the Supreme Court of British Columbia's opinion in Carter v. Canada as "masterful."   



Unfortunately,today,  the Court of Appeal for British Columbia reversed that ruling in this 86-page opinion, holding that Canada's prohibition on assisted-dying accorded with precedent and with the principles of fundamental justice.

Should the Lives of Loved Ones Always Be Extended by Technology?

In this 3-minute video clip, Katy Butler, the author of Knocking on Heaven's Door, joins Aljazeera America's Consider This host Antonio Mora to share her experiences caring for her aging parents, and offers her opinions on end-of-life care.

Ezekiel Emanuel Presentation at Hamline Law

THE HAMLINE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW DEAN’S DINNER

The Dean’s Dinner is Hamline Law’s annual celebration of transformative ideas and imagination in the law. This year’s Dean’s Dinner will continue that tradition when we feature Dr. Ezekiel “Zeke” Emanuel at the new Muse Event Center in the Minneapolis warehouse district. Dr. Emanuel—a trained oncologist and political scientist—is one of the leading practitioners shaping the future of healthcare law in the United States.

Thursday, November 21, 2013
Muse Event Center
107 3rd Avenue North, Minneapolis

5:30 p.m. – Cocktails and Hors D’oeuvres
6:30 p.m. – Seated Dinner and Program

Fellowship - Call for Applications: Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, & Bioethics

The Petrie-Flom Center is now accepting applications for
2014-2016 Academic Fellowships.

The Petrie-Flom
Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics is
an interdisciplinary research program at Harvard Law School dedicated to
scholarly research at the intersection of law and health policy, including
issues of health care financing and market regulation, biomedical research and
innovation, and bioethics. 

The Academic Fellowship is a postdoctoral program
specifically designed to identify, cultivate, and promote promising scholars
early in their careers. Fellows are selected from among recent graduates, young
academics, and mid-career practitioners who are committed to spending two years
at the Center pursuing publishable research that is likely to make a
significant contribution to the field of health law policy, medical innovation
policy, or bioethics. Prior fellows have found employment as law professors
at institutions such as Harvard, UC Berkeley, BU, UCLA, Cornell, the University
of Illinois, and the University of Arizona.

Completed applications must be received
at petrie-flom@law.harvard.edu  by
9:00 a.m. on November 18, 2013.  The full call for
applications can be found here or contact Administrative Director Cristine
Hutchison-Jones.

Health Law at AALS 2014

The AALS Section on Law, Medicine & Health Care is sponsoring two programs at the 2014 annual meeting in New York City.  



Sustainability and Health

Saturday, January 4, 2014, 2:00–3:45 p.m.



This panel will explore the effects of the environment on health in western nations and the role that sustainability initiatives play with regard to wellness. The panel will be interdisciplinary, broadly spanning topics in health, environmental, and animal law and policy as well as public health, land use, and urban planning. Proceedings will be published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics.

• Ani B. Satz, Emory University School of Law, Moderator


• Stephen Miller, University of Idaho School of Law, The Police Power and Public Health in the Age of Sustainability 


• Melissa Powers, Lewis and Clark Law School, Climate Action Plans and Urban Pollution


• Laurie Ristino, Vermont Law School, Food Policy for Improving Sustainability and Health: A Proposed Legal Framework


• Mark Izeman, NRDC, Emerging Trends in Regional Food Law: Implications for Sustainability and Health 


• Ashley Rhinehart, Humane Society of the U.S., Factory Farming, Sustainability, & Public Health 


• Joanna Sax, California Western School of Law, Revisiting the Role of the Value of a Statistical Life Through Fracking 

The Role of Nonprofits Under the Affordable Care Act

Friday, January 3, 2014, 10:30 a.m.–12:15 p.m.

(in Partnership with the Section on Nonprofit and Philanthropy Law)



This panel will address the role of nonprofit organizations under the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("ACA"). Broad topics include: the ACA’s new requirements for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt hospitals; Care and Reimbursement for Medicaid and Undocumented Patients; and nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (CO-OPs).  Proceedings will be published in the Indiana Health Law Review.

• Kathleen M. Boozang, Seton Hall University School of Law, Policies Addressing Care and Reimbursement for Undocumented Patients


• Erin C. Fuse Brown, Georgia State University College of Law, Fairness Is Not Charity: The Inadequate 501(r) Charge Limit and Collection Rules for Tax-Exempt Hospitals and a Proposal for Expansion


• Mary Crossley, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Nonprofit Hospitals as Partners in Community Health Improvement:  Lessons from the Community Reinvestment Act


• Thomas (Tim) L. Greaney, Saint Louis University School of Law, Nonprofit Hospital Conversions and Closings after Health Reform


• Mark A. Hall, Wake Forest University School of Law, Nonprofit Health Insurance Cooperatives: A Weak Idea that Might Actually Help


• Robert A. Katz, Indiana University McKinney School of Law, American Exceptionalism: The U.S. Tax Code's Refusal to Treat Health Care as a Per Se Charitable Purpose


• Jean Wright Veilleux, Charlotte School of Law, Unlikely Hero: How the IRS Can Use Its Regulatory Authority to Rescue the Medicaid Program


• Catherine E. Livingston, Jones Day, Commentator

Harms of Overtreatment

Here is a crisp BMJ video illustrating how incentivizing clinicians to do more (especially at the end of life) leads to doing more.   

Stafford v. Texas - Removing Life Support Does Not Break Causation

Albert Cleveland Stafford stabbed Ricardo Martinez several times in the chest, which necessitated his being put on life support.



Stafford was readily convicted of murder.  But he appealed, arguing that it was Martinez's removal of life support that caused his death, not the stabbing.



Murder defendants often make this argument.  And they always lose.  Here too.  Yesterday, the Texas Court of Appeals for the 13th District affirmed Stafford's conviction.

Legal, Medical, and Ethical Issues in Minnesota End-of-Life Care

Last November, I hosted a 200+ participant symposium at Hamline University titled "Legal, Medical, and Ethical Issues in Minnesota End-of-Life Care."  

The Hamline Law Review has just published a volume of articles that were generated in conjunction with the Symposium.  Here is the TOC.

Legal, Medical, and Ethical Issues in Minnesota End-of-Life Care: An Introduction to the Symposium

Thaddeus M. Pope

The Nursing Home as Part of the POLST Paradigm

Marshall B. Kapp

It Isn't Easy Being Pink: Potential Problems with POLST Paradigm Forms

Stanley A. Terman

Advances in Neuroimaging and the Vegetative State: Implications for End-of-Life Care

Maxine H. Harrington

Two Conflicts in Context: Lessons from the Schiavo and Bland Cases and the Role of Best Interests Analysis in the United Kingdom

Barbara A. Noah

Peeking Inside the Black Box: One Institution 's Experience Developing Policy for Unrepresented Patients

Rebecca L. Volpe

Deborah Steinman

Hospital Medical Futility Policy & the Severely Disabled Child: Is Disability a Death Sentence?

Laura C. Hoffman

Communicating with Patients and Families About Difficult End of Life Decisions: A Guide for Medical Providers

Jim deMaine

Joi Murotani Dennett

Health Care: How Long Should We Wait for a Miracle?

U.C. Davis Medical Professor Michael Wilkes writes about medical miracles in today's Sacramento Bee.



Dr. Wilkes notes that 76 percent of Americans believe in miracles.  But he asks: "do we build a health care system that plans for miracles?  How much time and money should we invest in waiting for a medical miracle to occur at the bedside?"  "When a person is in intensive care and the only treatments are those considered “medically futile,” should families be allowed to insist that hospitals continue to provide all life-sustaining therapies?"



Wilkes concludes his op-ed:  "With a new health care system on the horizon, we need to engage in public debates around futility and miracles and hope we can arrive at some clear guidelines around waiting for miracles."

Ezekiel Emanuel at Hamline on November 21

October 2013 Hamline University School of Law's annual Dean's Dinner (Thursday, November 21), will feature prominent oncologist and political scientist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr Emanuel has a long record of experience at the top levels of policy, and provides a uniquely thoughtful perspective on the most difficult issues in health care today. The Hamline Law Dean's Dinner, set this year for Thursday, November 21 , is an annual celebration of the transforming force of new ideas and imagination in the law.  By pairing thought leaders in business, education, and law with stimulating venues, the dinner strives to challenge its audience with the endless possibilities of what the legal profession could and should become. It is especially fitting that Dr. Emanuel has agreed to speak this year as the nation contemplates the dynamic and thorny future of health law and Hamline celebrates the continued success of its Health Law Institute, which is consistently ranked among the nation's top 20 health law programs. From February 2009 to January 2011, Dr. Emanuel was a special advisor for health policy to the White House Office of Management and Budget.    As one of the most prominent voices advising the White House about healthcare, he had a significant impact on federal healthcare budgets and the Affordable Care Act. Today, Dr. Emanuel holds a joint position at the Wharton School and the School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, where he chairs the Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy. He is a founding chair at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health. Until 1997, he was an associate professor at the Harvard Medical School. He is the author ofHealthcare, Guaranteed: A Simple, Secure Solution for America , a practical and highly readable book with concrete suggestions about how government and private insurance can work together to offer coverage for every citizen. He is one of the famed "Brothers Emanuel": his older brother Rahm is the mayor of Chicago and former White House chief of staff, and his youngest brother, Ari, is a Hollywood "superagent." The evening begins with cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at 5:30, followed by dinner and Dr. Emanuel's remarks at 6:30. This year's event will be held at Muse Event Center in the North Loop of downtown Minneapolis.   Hamline School of Law Named a Best Value by The National Jurist Strong employment statistics and affordability are two of the reasons Hamline Law was recently named one of the nation's top five "Best Value" private law schools.   Kate Kruse presents at McGeorge Law Review symposium Hamline Law Professor Kate Kruse presented at the University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law's symposium on the state and future of legal education.   Hamline Institutes Retain Prominence Hamline's strong dispute resolution and health law programs continue to be ranked nationally while Hamline's overall rankings advanced 25 places.   Minnesota Twins support Hamline Law course The Minnesota Twins' executive offices at Target Field were the venue for Hamline Law's unique "Law and the Business of Baseball" course. Morrow teaches through National Judicial College Hamline Law Professor Judge Jim Morrow recently taught a four-day judicial decision making course to state court trial judges at the National Judicial College in Reno. Press teaches at Humboldt University in Berlin Dispute Resolution Institute Director Sharon Press taught Negotiation and Mediation to 120 students from around the world at Humboldt University in Berlin. This past year has been one of accomplishment for Hamline Law. Improved national rankings, recognition as a “best value,” strong bar pass, new programs and the appointment of a renowned innovator in legal education tell just part of the story. (more)

Bioethics, Healthcare Policy, and Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Age of Obamacare

Bioethics, Healthcare Policy,   and Alternative Dispute Resolution  in the Age of Obamacare   Monday, November 18, 2013 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. Cardozo School of Law

Prominent speakers and panelists will explore cutting-edge topics including clinical ethics consultation, decision making at the end of life, and ADR in the context of the Affordable Healthcare Act ("Obamacare"). Featuring: Adrienne Asch (Director, Center for Ethics and Professor of Bioethics, Yeshiva University; Professor of Epidemiology and Population Health, and of Family and Social Medicine , Albert Einstein College of Medicine) Nancy Berlinger (Research Scholar, The Hastings Center) Edward Bergman (Professor of Bioethics and Clinical Ethics Mediation, University of Pennsylvania) Arthur Caplan (Professor and Founding Head of the Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Langone Medical Center) Nancy Neveloff Dubler (bioethics consultant and Professor Emerita at Albert Einstein College of Medicine) Autumn Fiester (Director of the Penn Clinical Ethics Mediation Program; Director of Education, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, UPenn's Pearlman School of Medicine) Debra Gerardi (CEO, EHCCO),  Melinda Reid Hatton (General Counsel, American Hospital Association) Michael Kosnitzky (Boies, Schiller & Flexner; arbitrator of healthcare disputes) Carol Liebman (Columbia Law School) Joseph M. Miller (General Counsel,  American Health Insurance Plans) Thaddeus Pope (Director, Health Law Institute, Hamline University) Charity Scott (Georgia State University's College of Law) Michelle M. Skipper (VP of the American Arbitration Association; Chair of the Association's Healthcare Dispute Resolution Advisory Council) Ellen Waldman (Thomas Jefferson School of Law)