INTRODUCTION: What is Health Justice?

Health justice is both a community-led movement for power building and transformational change and a community-oriented framework for health law scholarship. Health justice is distinguished by a distinctively social ethic of care that reframes the relationship between health care, public health, and the social determinants of health, and names subordination as the root cause of health inequities.

Expertise in law, medicine, and health care.

As the practice of science-based medical evidence has challenged the medical profession to consider the scientific bases for its methods and procedures, on a seemingly parallel path, the United States Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals has challenged the legal system to consider the science underlying claims of medical expertise. This article examines how the legal system has responded to that challenge and why the response has been more limited than many had expected; the implications of the legal system's approach to scrutiny of claims of medical expertise for the practice of science-based medical evidence; and, the central elements of any meaningful change in legal assessments of expertise in medicine and health care.

Getting it right: the trial of sexual assault and child molestation cases under federal rules of evidence 413-415.

Congressional enactment of Federal Rules of Evidence 413-415 changed centuries of the law which had excluded evidence by the state that the defendant had committed other bad acts and was therefore the sort of person who would be more likely to commit the act charged. The passage of Rules 413-415 opens the door to this type of character evidence in sexual assault and child molestation cases and requires trial judges to assess the probative value of this propensity evidence offered. Yet, neither these rules nor their legislative history offer much guidance in this assessment.

Special perspective an immodest proposal: should treating mental health professionals be barred from testifying about their patients?

Notwithstanding ethical rules that address therapeutic and forensic role conflicts for psychologists and psychiatrists, overzealous patient advocacy by therapists, tightened reimbursement for therapy, and a growth market for forensic psychology and psychiatry, have led many therapists to appear willingly as forensic experts on behalf of their patients. Existing ethical rules, as well as other proposed approaches to address this problem, assume that it can be resolved by modest changes in existing practice that permit therapists to testify as long as their testimony avoids psycholegal opinions. This essay questions whether these modest changes can adequately address this problem and advances consideration of a more radical proposal to address this problem, prohibiting therapists from testifying about their patients.

Forgoing artificial nutrition and hydration: legal and ethical considerations.

Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining care are daily events in most hospitals and long-term care facilities. When the life-sustaining care includes artificial nutrition and hydration, however, families and other surrogate decision makers sometimes reach a different conclusion than when the care consists of ventilation or other life support. This tendency to view artificial nutrition and hydration as "different" is one that is sometimes shared by professional ethicists and courts.