Infanticide, like most other species of homicide, is probably coeval with the human race itself. In modern Western civilization, what were formerly the most powerful incentives to infanticide have virtually disappeared. As with other social problems that affluence has seemed to solve, however, infanticide has reappeared in a new form that seems to have been made possible by affluence itself. This "new infanticide" occurs in a place whose very existence is the result of a tremendously wealthy society's devotion to its most vulnerable and least “useful” members. The modern neonatal intensive care unit, which treats, and often saves, extremely ill newborn children, who during most of history would surely have died, has proven to be a setting where many of the age-old incentives for infanticide have begun to operate again. The “new infanticide” consists of withholding food or needed medical treatment from selected infants who suffer from one or more serious, though treatable, medical problems. The national government has now enacted legislation designed to curtail the practice of infanticide by the medical profession. This paper traces the genesis of that legislation, explores the problem to which it is addressed, and evaluates its prospects for success.

Selective non-treatment decisions involving severely handicapped neonates have recently come under renewed judicial and legislative scrutiny. In this Article, the Author examines the legal, ethical and social considerations attendant to the non-treatment decision. In Part II of this Article the Author discusses the predominant ethical viewpoints relating to this issue and proposes a new moral standard based on personal interests. Part III presents a survey of the jurisprudence relating to selective non-treatment decisions. Parts IV and V of this Article provide a critical examination of the recently enacted Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, a federal legislative initiative designed to regulate treatment decisions relating to handicapped infants. The Author suggests that the ethical standards and treatment criteria proposed in this Article may prove useful to courts seeking to balance the handicapped neonate's constitutional right to privacy with the requirements of the new federal law.

With the onset of the energy crisis in the 1970’s, thousands of homeowners insulated their homes with Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI). The discovery that UFFI releases formaldehyde, a carcinogen and irritant, prompted various state and federal responses to this problem. This Note reviews those responses and concludes that a ban on the sale of UFFI, coupled with a removal and repurchase program, is the most effective solution from the standpoint of consumer health.

The freestanding emergency center, which combines the functions of a doctor's office and a hospital emergency room, has emerged as a new provider of health care. These centers have generated considerable controversy over their role in the health care market. Proponents argue that freestanding emergency centers reduce costs by providing care in a more efficient manner and cause other health care providers such as hospital emergency rooms to reduce costs and improve service. Opponents argue that the centers create an additional layer of health care which duplicates existing services and increases total health care costs. This Note examines the controversial issues of licensure, regulation and reimbursement. The Note concludes that freestanding emergency centers can help to reduce health care costs and discusses the steps that should be taken to aid centers in achieving this goal.