In recent years the federal government has attempted to intervene in certain family-medical decisions to withhold treatment from seriously handicapped newborns with life-threatening conditions. Invoking section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against “otherwise qualified handicapped” individuals, the Reagan Administration promulgated regulations allowing federal government investigations of such decisions. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions invalidating these “Baby Doe” regulations. The federal government's fall-back position is reflected in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Amendments of 1984, requiring states accepting funds under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to establish and maintain procedures to assure that cases of medical neglect of handicapped infants are investigated by the states. Although the primary oversight of parental decision-making has been returned to the states where it has traditionally belonged, the federal government's definition of medical neglect of handicapped infants with life-threatening conditions is an ethically inadequate response to the complex needs of the handicapped child, the family, the medical profession, and society as a whole. After examining the relevance of Kantian, utilitarian, and Rawlsian ethical positions, the author contends that an effective governmental policy, capable of enforcement and acceptance by the public, must utilize the strengths of each philosophy and reflect the pragmatism of American society.

This Article links the legal evolution of mandatory medical prescription since 1900 to the police-power's prohibition of alcohol and the opiates as well as to the self-interested monopolization of new drugs by physicians. The Article advances a theory of professionalization consistent with the evidence that mandatory prescription is not in the public interest. The Article suggests that the supremacy of self-medication is consistent with competition policy, the medical profession's fiduciary duty to clients, reduced medical costs and improved health. The author analyzes the consequences of regulating drug production, testing, marketing and consumtion by granting decision-making authority to the lowest-cost risk avoider, suggesting this as a plausible basis for legal reform.

Many families throughout the United States have recently detected dangerously high concentrations of radon gas inside their homes. Radon, a carcinogenic gas produced from uranium, has been discovered in structures overlying uranium-bearing rock. This discovery may result in litigation to determine contractor liability for building upon radon-releasing rock sites. This Note examines the strengths and weaknesses of the various theories of contractor liability and considers potential statutory claims under the Clean Air Act. The Note suggests, as an alternative approach to recovery, a proposed regulatory scheme and implementation plan.

Under most workers' compensation statutes, an injury must “arise out of” and “in the course of” employment in order to qualify as a compensable disability. In U.S. Industries v. Director, the Supreme Court held that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act must be strictly construed to avoid transforming the compensation system into a form of social insurance. In U.S. Industries, the Court denied a disability claim based on an arthritic condition which was manifested while the worker was at home in bed. This Note contends that the Supreme Court neglected to consider pertinent medical realities when analyzing the causation question. Thus, the decision undermines the overall rationale behind workers' compensation legislation. Nonetheless, the Note argues that the case does not relax the requirement of adequately scrutinizing the causative elements underlying any reasonable claim for disability benefits. An analysis adequately accommodating both medical and legal facts, instead of relying upon the vagaries of statutory interpretation, is necessary to improve the efficiency and fairness of workers' compensation disability determinations.