|
|
Sunday, November 03, 2002
|
|
| |
A modern law school exam question
A hospital in Britain has exposed 24 patients to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (reflexively called "the human form of mad cow disease") by using contaminated surgical instruments. The original patient was not diagnosed with CJD until after the other patients had been operated on, although the news reports indicate that there was some suspicion about it earlier. The patients have been told that there is nothing to do but wait to see if they develop symptoms, and that it may take as long as 30 years for the symptoms to appear. (AP story/Herald Sun)
Query: How would a court handle this kind of damages issue in the event of litigation? Compare the upcoming Supreme Court consideration of Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, involving claims for the fear of developing cancer from asbestos exposure, by plaintiffs who have developed asbestosis but do not have evidence of cancer. At least those plaintiffs do have documented disease arising from the exposure.
The disease properly known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) is marked by the appearance of a prion in the body, often years before it appears. In this sense the disease is remarkably similar to AIDS, where the HIV is an early marker of the later active disease. The prion can remain on surgical implements even after they are sterilized, which is why it has become mandatory in Britain to discard the instruments after use on a patient with vCJD. Whether operating on someone who simply has the prion carries the same risk is unknown. The number of people carrying the prion is unknown.
9:51:15 PM 
|
|
"Florida judge bans GOP poll watchers"
This is the typical headline reporting this story (example from Crosswalk), and if accurate it would be an outrageous ruling. Poll watching is a legitimate election tactic, intended to catch those who are not eligible so that election workers can take the steps provided by law to challenge their vote, and otherwise ensure that the election is being conducted according to law. Obviously, the line between poll watching and voter intimidation can be somewhat difficult to discern.
An examination of the story, however, shows that the order prevents a political action committee from stationing its own poll watchers at voting places in Miami-Dade County. It apparently does nothing to prevent legitimate poll watchers from the Democratic and Republican parties from carrying out their function. It may be reasonable to bar unaffiliated individuals and groups other than the political parties from poll-watching, since otherwise there would be no limit to the watchers. In many states, however, groups other than political parties are permitted to engage in this activity.
4:57:41 PM
|
|
Sex and politics
The following appeared together on Ipse Dixit:
Now That's An Endorsement! - "[E]ver since I started sliding towards conservatism, the number of orgasms I experience has increased exponentially." - michele
"The Bush Bounce" - President Bush visits a state and GOP candidates experience a nice-sized jump in their poll numbers. In fact, a couple of close races could very well be won because Bush visited the state for a few hours. That must really drive the ballot counters nuts!
The titles could have been reversed.
8:09:06 AM
|
|
This could work
Ron Dzwonkowski, opinion page editor of the Free Press, has an excellent idea:
For elections to come, I propose that the cable companies create the Campaign Channel, where all the political ads run endlessly, without disrupting regular viewing. People can click over there to watch for an hour, make their decisions, and then resume normal viewing.
8:03:29 AM
|
|
This Tuesday
Nolan Finley of the Detroit News dispenses with the platitudes, rejecting the ridiculous notion that "it doesn't matter who you vote for, just get out and vote". It does matter. It matters a great deal.
If your only ballot research is to absorb the nasty advertising polluting the airwaves, tell your friends and family that you're turned off by the negativity and are protesting by not voting.
Because this election has the potential to bring tremendous change to Michigan. It deserves more than just a cursory consideration. It merits voters stopping to ask themselves some serious questions.
For the past 12 years, the state has been managed by a pro-growth governor who has emphasized a friendly business climate and job creation. Do you want Michigan to continue in that direction?
If not, then by all means, pull the donkey's tail and do so knowing that Big Labor and trial lawyers will call the shots in a Democratic administration. Maybe we'll all be surprised and that won't mean higher taxes and fewer jobs this time around. . .
Think about it. And if you're not willing to weigh all that's at stake on Tuesday, think about staying home.
7:54:48 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2002
Franco Castalone.
Last update:
12/2/2002; 7:49:18 AM.
|
|
|
