This article examines the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in a public health emergency context. Congress enacted EMTALA in 1986 to prohibit the practice of “patient clumping,” which involved hospitals’ refusal to undertake emergency screening and stabilization services for individual patients who sought emergency room care, typically because of insurance status, inability to pay, or other grounds unrelated to the patient’s need for the services or the hospital’s ability to provide them. But in fact EMTALA, whose conceptual roots can (...) be found in the Hospital Survey and Construction Act of 1946 as well as an evolution in both the common law and state statutes related to hospital licensure, can be viewed as having a far broader purpose than protection of individuals, and indeed, one that is related to the protection of communities and the public health. (shrink)

The contributions of Professor Bernard Dickens to health law and bioethics span the era in which these fields have emerged as distinct domains of teaching, scholarship and professional and public conversation. Neither field exists in a vacuum. The concerns of bioethics, like the content of health law, are a product of social forces. The bureaucratization of medical care, the possibilities and uncertainties created by developments in medical technology, not to mention glaring health inequalities, have been destabilizing forces in medicine. Writing (...) in 1974, American sociologist Renée Fox noted that medicine had reached “a stage of development characterized by diffuse ethical and existential self-consciousness.” This new medical introspection was evidenced by intense engagement with issues of biomedical regulation, and with the growth of professional codes and processes for resolving value-laden issues within clinical settings.While sometimes described as a process or site for discussion and “engagement,” bioethics evolved rapidly into a domain of governance, with direct implications for clinical practice. (shrink)

The contributions of Professor Bernard Dickens to health law and bioethics span the era in which these fields have emerged as distinct domains of teaching, scholarship and professional and public conversation. Neither field exists in a vacuum. The concerns of bioethics, like the content of health law, are a product of social forces. The bureaucratization of medical care, the possibilities and uncertainties created by developments in medical technology, not to mention glaring health inequalities, have been destabilizing forces in medicine. Writing (...) in 1974, American sociologist Renée Fox noted that medicine had reached “a stage of development characterized by diffuse ethical and existential self-consciousness.” This new medical introspection was evidenced by intense engagement with issues of biomedical regulation, and with the growth of professional codes and processes for resolving value-laden issues within clinical settings.While sometimes described as a process or site for discussion and “engagement,” bioethics evolved rapidly into a domain of governance, with direct implications for clinical practice. (shrink)

The two questions, “What is public health law?” and “How can law improve the public's health?” are perennial ones for public health law scholars. This paper proposes a framework for conceptualizing discussion and debate about the scope and opportunities for public health law within liberal democracies. Part 2 of the paper draws selectively on this framework in order to highlight some areas where law's potential role deserves greater acknowledgment and exploration.

The two questions, “What is public health law?” and “How can law improve the public’s health?”, are perennial ones for public health law scholars. They are ideological questions because perceptions about the proper boundaries of law’s role will shape perceptions of what law can do, in an operational sense, to improve health outcomes. They are also theoretical questions, in the sense that, without closing down debate about the limits of public health law, these questions can be addressed by mapping the (...) range of perspectives on how law might “go to work” for the public’s health. Finally, these are immensely practical questions. On our ability to understand the roles that law can play in public health improvement rests our capacity, as a society, to use law strategically as a policy tool. (shrink)