Some sources condemn judicial decisions which authorize the withdrawal of artificial nutrition from permanently unconscious patients. These critics assert that withdrawal of nutrition from a preservable unconscious patient amounts to intentional killing of a helpless human being. Grave implications are seen for helpless patients.

This article confronts these critics and their assertions. The author contends that the judicial approach which allows withdrawal of artificial nutrition is fully consistent with traditional medico-legal doctrines. The article articulates a standard — respect for human dignity — which justifies withdrawal of artificial nutrition from a permanently unconscious patient. The implications of this formula for other imcompetent patients facing a protracted dying process is discussed. Finally, the article explains why active euthanasia can and ought to be distinguished from withdrawal of life-preserving medical intervention.

In the case of Institut Pasteur v. United States, the Institut Pasteur (Pasteur) claimed that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had breached express and implied contracts to share research on AIDS virus samples provided to NCI by Pasteur. NCI scientists allegedly used the samples to acquire information which allowed NCI to file patent applications for an AIDS blood test kit.

The United States Claims Court dismissed the complaint by holding that the Institut Pasteur had not complied with certain administrative procedures required by the Contract Disputes Act before bringing its suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Claims Court by holding that the disputed contracts did not fit within the scope of the Contract Disputes Act.

Soon after the Court of Appeals decision, President Reagan and Prime, Minister Chirac announced a settlement agreement whereby the lawsuit was to be dropped, American and French scientists were to share credit for having discovered the AIDS virus, and both parties to the suit were to share the patent rights for the AIDS blood test kit. This settlement suggests that international legal disputes involving urgent scientific and medical matters may require dispute resolution techniques that serve as alternatives to national courts.

The availability of patents for genetically altered animals raises questions about the patentability of human beings. Genetic research will produce beings who fall halfway between what we currently think of as “animal” and “human.” It is unclear on which side of the legal line these creatures will fall. In April 1988, Congress revised the Patent Act with a statement that human beings are not to be considered patentable subject matter. Congress, however, failed to supply a definition of the term “human being.” A definition will clarify the legal status of sub-human creatures. The author addresses this problem and proposes a definition of “human being” as an amendment to the Patent Act.

This Note examines how both the law and the health care profession neglect women's needs for abortion counseling before, during and after an abortion. Part I analyzes the health care profession's view of counseling, the psychological effects of abortion and how counseling both positively and negatively influences those effects. Part II reviews Supreme Court cases and state law regarding abortion counseling, critizing both the Court's narrow view of counseling and the states’ failure to use the legislative process to create laws which benefit maternal health. Part III recommends an expanded role for abortion counseling, in which the counselor can provide emotional support from before the day of an abortion until a woman emotionally recovers from an abortion. This expanded role would be state-mandated, but would remain within constitutional boundaries by providing flexibility for counselors to give individual treatment while respecting a woman's privacy.