This study of the occupational health law of the European Union looks first at the jurisdiction of the Union and the history and scope of its legislation in this area.

The main body of the Article examines the level of protection that is afforded to the workforce under European Union law. The Article first considers the way in which assessment of risk is handled and then passes on to measures that are provided for both preventing and protecting against health risks. It notes the greater role given to protection. The Article also mentions the ancillary measures that are destined to make both prevention and protection effective. Finally, it looks at the Union's detailed provisions for worker involvement in occupational health matters and the more meager ones on employment rights and compensation.

The Article ends with a discussion of the problems faced by the Union in enforcing its rules and an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the European Union's occupational health law. It is suggested that, overall, it deserves a positive judgment.

Legal and ethical questions regarding existing organ transplant procurement policies and practices are numerous and unsettling. They arise because transplantable organs are scarce. The scarcity of such organs has been the hue and cry of several medical and legal scholars. For example, the scarcity creates competition among those who wait, necessitating equitable organ allocation procedures and guidelines. Medical obstacles surround the determination of when, how, and on whom such procedures can be performed successfully. Other obstacles range from finding a suitable donor for proper “matching” with the intended donee, to the time constraints involved in preserving excised organs until transplantation, to the donee's ability to fight off rejection of transplanted organs. There is also the obstacle of locating available organs. As medical technology continues to advance, the number of possible organ sources increases. Currently, these sources have included live human donors, cadavers, mechanical devices, animals, fetuses, anencephalic infants, and “brain-dead” donors.

For years, people living in rural areas have struggled unsuccessfully to attract and retain primary care physicians to supply basic medical care to their residents. Rural areas continue to suffer from chronic shortages of physicians and mid-level practitioners, as well as high rates of hospital closures and increased levels of uninsurance and underinsurance, reducing both the physical and financial health of these communities. Physical and economic barriers unique to rural areas block the adequate delivery of health care and contribute to this shortage of health care personnel.

Although Congress has made some progress in identifying where health care shortages occur, it has not adequately identified the source of the shortages, and thus, it has not been able to find adequate solutions to rural health care ills. Past legislative action has involved identifying shortage areas and then providing financial incentives to attract physicians and increase the financial health of hospitals by subsidizing the difference between rural America's ability to pay and what physicians are willing to accept.

A sexual assault trial requires a court to balance evidentiary privileges enacted by a state legislature against a criminal defendant's constitutional trial rights. State legislatures enact various privileges which either limit or prohibit the discovery of confidential communications in criminal trials. Such statutes reflect a firmly based legislative effort to protect citizens’ private and personal confidences from unwarranted public scrutiny. When a defendant charged with sexual assault seeks to compel discovery of the victim's privileged medical, psychiatric, or counseling records, a conflict inevitably arises. States and victims assert that courts must respect statutory assurances of confidentiality; defendants assert that their constitutional right to a fair trial and their right to confront the witnesses and evidence against them mandates disclosure. Resolution of this pressing conflict requires a careful balancing of both the state's and defendant's interests on a case by case basis.