フェミニズム法学が書き換える医事法の見解<br>Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten (Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions)

個数:

フェミニズム法学が書き換える医事法の見解
Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten (Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions)

  • 提携先の海外書籍取次会社に在庫がございます。通常3週間で発送いたします。
    重要ご説明事項
    1. 納期遅延や、ご入手不能となる場合が若干ございます。
    2. 複数冊ご注文の場合は、ご注文数量が揃ってからまとめて発送いたします。
    3. 美品のご指定は承りかねます。

    ●3Dセキュア導入とクレジットカードによるお支払いについて
  • 【入荷遅延について】
    世界情勢の影響により、海外からお取り寄せとなる洋書・洋古書の入荷が、表示している標準的な納期よりも遅延する場合がございます。
    おそれいりますが、あらかじめご了承くださいますようお願い申し上げます。
  • ◆画像の表紙や帯等は実物とは異なる場合があります。
  • ◆ウェブストアでの洋書販売価格は、弊社店舗等での販売価格とは異なります。
    また、洋書販売価格は、ご注文確定時点での日本円価格となります。
    ご注文確定後に、同じ洋書の販売価格が変動しても、それは反映されません。
  • 製本 Hardcover:ハードカバー版/ページ数 400 p.
  • 言語 ENG
  • 商品コード 9781108495097
  • DDC分類 344.73041

Full Description

This volume provides an alternate history of health law by rewriting key judicial opinions from a feminist perspective. Each chapter includes a rewritten opinion penned by a leading scholar relying exclusively on court precedents and scientific understanding available at the time of the original decision accompanied by commentary from an expert placing the case in historical context and explaining how the feminist judgment might have shaped a different path for subsequent developments. It provides a map of the health law field-where paternalism, individualism, gender stereotypes, and tensions over the public-private divide shape decisions about informed consent, medical and nursing malpractice, the relationships among health care professionals and the institutions where they work, 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, long-term care, private health insurance, Medicaid coverage, the Affordable Care Act, and more.

Contents

1. Introduction Seema Mohapatra and Lindsay F. Wiley; 2. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) Danielle Pelfrey Duryea and Kelly Dineen; 3. Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973) Aziza Ahmed and Wendy Parmet; 4. Conservatorship of Valerie N., 707 P.2d 760 (Cal. 1985) Cynthia Soohoo, Sofia Yakren and Doriane Lambelet Coleman; 5. Bouvia v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (Cal Ct. App. 1986) Joan H. Krause and Barry Furrow; 6. Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) Jessica Roberts and Lisa C. Ikemoto; 7. Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment, 65 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 1995) Ruqaiijah Yearby and Gwendolyn Roberts Majette; 8. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) Doron Dorfman and Becka Rich; 9. Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) Christina S. Ho and Valarie Blake; 10. Smith v. Rasmussen, 249 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2001) Heather Walter McCabe and Craig Konnoth; 11. Burton v. State, 49 So.3d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) Greer Donley and Nadia Sawicki; 12. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) Mary Ann Chirba, Alice A. Noble and Elizabeth Weeks; 13. Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 836 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2016) Maya Manian and Leslie C. Griffin; 14. Does v. Gillespie, 867 F. 3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2017) Elizabeth Kukura, Jennifer Oliva and Melissa Alexander; 15. National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 2361 (2018) Brietta R. Clark and Sonia Suter.

最近チェックした商品