The idea for this article first occurred to me more than one year ago when the Brother Fox case was decided by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York. At the same time, debate was raging among, and between, lawyers and psychiatrists about the right of involuntary psychiatric patients to refuse antipsychotic medication. Thus. I was led to consider the philosophical and legal relationship between the so-called right to die and the right to refuse psychiatric treatment.

Skyrocketing health care costs are endemic during inflationary periods, affecting not only health care consumers, but also health care providers. Virtually all governmental policymakers recognize spiraling health care costs, but hospital costs continue to escalate faster than the general rate of inflation. In response, alternatives to the traditional physician-patient and hospital-patient relationships have experienced a dramatic resurgence in the last decade, competing for the health care dollar. Two health care alternatives, the health maintenance organizstion (HMO) and the ambulatory surgical center (surgicenter) at which minor surgical procedures can be performed on an out-patient basis. have emerged to provide health care services in a more cost-efficient manner, thereby increasing price competition in the health care sector. The most recent alternative health care system on the health care horizon is the free standing emergency center or “emergicenter.” The growth of these emergicenters within the last few years has heen dramatic—500 in existence as of March 1982.

Product liability litigation may proceed under several theories when someone has suffered harm caused by a product furnished by a commercial supplier. Liability for injuries or death caused by defective products can be based on the negligence of the manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of a product; on breach of warranty; on misrepresentations made by the seller regarding the nature or quality of the product; and on a theory of strict liability. In all cases, however, the plaintiff must prove that the negligence of the supplier of the product or the defective or unreasonably dangerous product itself caused the injury. Very often the testimony of an expert witness on the issues of defect and causation may be required to establish a prima facie case.

Skyrocketing health care costs are endemic during inflationary periods, affecting not only health care consumers, but also health care providers. Virtually all governmental policymakers recognize spiraling health care costs, but hospital costs continue to escalate faster than the general rate of inflation. In response, alternatives to the traditional physician-patient and hospital-patient relationships have experienced a dramatic resurgence in the last decade, competing for the health care dollar. Two health care alternatives, the health maintenance organizstion (HMO) and the ambulatory surgical center (surgicenter) at which minor surgical procedures can be performed on an out-patient basis. have emerged to provide health care services in a more cost-efficient manner, thereby increasing price competition in the health care sector. The most recent alternative health care system on the health care horizon is the free standing emergency center or “emergicenter.” The growth of these emergicenters within the last few years has heen dramatic—500 in existence as of March 1982.

On July 1, 1982, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, ruling that the “female only” admission policy of a state-supported nursing school violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment. The case has political and legal implications not only for nursing education, but for the nursing profession as well.

Joe Hogan, a registered nurse, worked as a nursing supervisor in a medical center in Columbus, Mississippi. In 1979, he applied for admission to the baccalaureate program at Mississippi University for Women (MUW) School of Nursing, located in Columbus. Although he met all of the school’s substantive admission criteria, Hogan was denied admission solely because MUW has, since its inception, admitted only females. The school’s policies would, however, permit him to audit nursing courses and to attend continuing ed,ucation courses.

The application of the antitrust laws to the health care field has generated intense debate over the last few years. Responsible for this debate in no small measure are the numerous health care antitrust cases that have reached and been decided by the United States Supreme Court. In the final weeks of the October 1981 term, the Court decided three such cases which should be of great interest to health care professionals. Although each involves a different point of law, collectively the decisions underscore the increasing amount of litigation that challenges joint conduct by health care providers, and the increasingly rigorous scrutiny that courts are giving such conduct under the antitrust laws.

The case that has received the most recent attention is Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society,’ which involved an alleged price-fixing agreement among physicians. Defendants were the county medical societies in Maricopa and Pima Counties in Arizona, and the foundations for medical care which each society had created.

Consumer demand and federal support has caused the number of certified nurse-midwives to quadruple in the last decade, from 629 in 1970 to 2500 in 1982. Despite their record of reducing infant mortality and satisfying consumers, nurse-midwives are still an underutilized health resource. This article provides a brief history of nurse-midwifery. describes nurse-midwives’ education and current legal status, discusses obstacles to wider use of nurse-midwives, and examines the issues of safety and cost-effectiveness of nurse-midwifery practice.

The word “midwife” often evokes images of home births attended by “granny” or “lay” midwives who lack formal education in obstetrics. Yet, professionally educated nurse-midwives have practiced in this country since 1925, when an American nurse, educated in nurse-midwifery in England, came to the mountains of eastern Kentucky.

Rare is the pharmacist today who does not participate as a service provider in one or several third party prescription insurance programs. Latest figures indicate that 372.7 million prescriptions or 25.4 percent of all prescriptions dispensed in this country were paid for at least in part by some form of prescription drug insurance.’ The economic impact which these third party programs are having on the retail pharmacist has caused their prominence as one of the most serious and important issues in pharmacy today.

Most third party prescription programs (TPPPs) are similar in structure and include a program administrator or insurance company, a sponsor (often an employer or labor union), subscribers or beneficiaries. and the participating pharmacies. Typically, the insurer or program administrator (hereinafter. the administrator) offers a contract or a “pharmacy agreement” to each pharmacy in a particular area. Each pharmacy must then decide whether or not to accept the agreement and become a participating pharmacy.