National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra / commentary, Brietta R. Clark ; judgment, Sonia Suter. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital / commentary, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea ; judgment, Kelly K. Dineen -- Reynolds v. McNichols / commentary, Aziza Ahmed ; judgment, Wendy E. Parmet -- Conservatorship of Valerie N. / commentary, Cynthia Soohoo and Sofia Yakren ; judgment, Doriane Lambelet Coleman -- Bouvia v. Superior Court / commentary, Joan H. Krause ; judgment, Barry Furrow -- Moore v. Regents of University of California / commentary, Jessica Roberts ; judgment, Lisa C. Ikemoto -- Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment / commentary, Ruqaiijah Yearby ; judgment, Gwendolyn Roberts Majette -- Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring / commentary, Doron Dorfman ; judgment, Becka Rich -- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha / commentary, Christina S. Ho ; judgment, Valarie Blake -- Smith v. Rasmussen / commentary, Heather Walter-McCabe ; judgment, Craig Konnoth -- Burton v. State / commentary, Greer Donley ; judgment, Nadia Sawicki -- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius / commentary, Mary Ann Chirba and Alice A. Noble ; judgment, Elizabeth Weeks -- Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops / commentary, Maya Manian ; judgment, Leslie C. Griffin -- Does v. Gillespie / commentary, Elizabeth Kukura ; judgment, Jennifer Oliva and Melissa Alexander -- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra / commentary, Brietta R. Clark ; judgment, Sonia Suter.
Summary:
"This book demonstrates how feminist analysis can transform law in a field where paternalism, individualism, gender stereotypes, and tensions over the public-private divide shape judicial decisions. Each chapter focuses on a single court decision related to health law. The decisions concern patient autonomy, informed consent, medical and nursing malpractice, the relationships among health care professionals and the institutions where they work, communications between health care providers and the patients they serve, end-of-life care, reproductive health care, biomedical research, ownership of human tissues and cells, the influence of religious directives on health care standards, health care discrimination, equitable access to long-term care in nursing homes, equitable access to community-based alternatives, private health insurance, Medicaid coverage, the Affordable Care Act, and more. Each chapter begins with a commentary from a scholar who puts the case in historical context, summarizes the original opinion, discusses what makes the rewritten opinion feminist, and describes how a feminist approach might have altered subsequent developments in health law. The feminist judgments take the form of rewritten majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents. The opinion authors are scholars who inhabit the role of a judge deciding the case. They rely exclusively on the factual record, precedents, and scientific understanding available at the time of the original decision to show how a judge with a feminist perspective could have adjudicated the matter differently"-- Provided by publisher.
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.