The Honorable Edward F. Hennessey, Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, will address registrants of ASLM's Fourth Annual Medicolegal Evaluation of Disability program to be held Wednesday, November 19th in Boston. This year's seminar will focus on the medicolegal evaluation of disability of neurologic and psychiatric disorders and will be chaired by Doctors Gerald F. Winkler. Neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and Robert R. Mezer, noted forensic psychiatrist.

The one day program will be held in Boston's Copley Plaza Hotel and will be of interest and of practical value to the many professionals who must evaluate and rate disability in the course of their work. As with past ASLM disability seminars, this year's symposium should be of interest and value to examining physicians, attorneys, insurance adjusters and supervisors, members of the Judiciary, Workmen's Compensation Commissioners, personnel involved with Social Security, and retirement panel members.

Until the passage of a recent amendment by Congress, nonprofit hospitals were excluded from coverage by the National Labor Relations (Wagner) Act (NLRA), which had established as the national policy the right of workers in most industries affecting interstate commerce to organize themselves into unions. Such exclusion from NLRA jurisdiction primarily affected the unskilled nonprofit hospital employees. such as general aides, orderlies, porters. nursing aides, housekeeping and maintenance personnel as opposed to professional and technical hospital employees.

When there were indications that the nonprofit hospital exemption was being reevaluated. numerous arguments in favor of its retention were advanced by its proponents.

First, it has been contended that unions tend to break down discipline and that once unionized, employees may be less willing to give immediate obedience to orders.

In late December 1974, the Cailfornia Supreme Court considerably broadened a physician's duty to disclose Information gained in the course of treatment by enunclating the following rule: “When a doctor or a psychotherapist, in the exercise of his professional skill and knowledge, determines, or should determine, that a warning is essential to avert danger arising from the medical or psychological condifion of his patient. he incurs a legal obligation to give that warning.” (emphasis mine)

Prior to this case most lawyers would probably have assumed that such a “legal obligation” would have only been imposed by statute. such as contagious disease, child abuse and gunshot wound reporting statutes, and that giving of such warnings in the absence of a specific statute mandating reporting or warning was optional with the physician. While this case involved a psychologist, and is most relevant to psychlatric care, the broad language used by the court makes it clear that, in California at least. Its conclusions apply to all types of physicians. Because of its broad implications. It is worth taking a careful look at the facts which prompted the court to enunciate this expansive rule.

The making of organ donor gifts when one's own body no longer needs the tissue seems a reasonable way in which one may make a gift that projects into the future.

Still, tissue shortages exist everywhere. Even England, where understanding of the intersection of health needs and distributive justice is generally viewed as more advanced than in the United States, suffers from a tissue shortage. We can only assume that the waiting lists for organs will grow unless our response to organ need changes dramatically. since our developing medical technologies will increasingly provide us with methods lor successful transplantation.

Common law has prevented individuals in the past from providing for the disposition of their own bodies. Passage of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act in the 50 states and promulgation of similar measures throughout Canada, however has overcome that tradition. This Act permits persons to donate organs with the gift becoming effective upon death. Support for the Act was strong, and the bill was enacted state by state with unprecedented swiftness. Yet, organs are still not readily available.

Two years and 25 days following United States Supreme Court's controversial decision on abortion, a Massachusetts Superior Court jury of nine men and three women handed down an historic decision of their own against a Boston physician accused of manslaughter in connection with an abortion he performed on a 17 year old girl.

And so on February 15, 1975, 36 year old Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin, Coordinator of Ambulatory Care in OB/GYN at Boston City Hospital, was found gullty as charged:

It has long been held that a physician who has had no previous professional connection with an incident affecting an individual has no duty to testify on his behalf in court. Where a physician is requested to appear as an expert witness to give opinion testimony, he has no legal obligation to accept and his appearance is purely voluntary and by prearrangement. Under these circumstances, the physician may require that he be paid an “expert” witness fee in an amount determined by the usual and customary fee for such services and by the amount of time he actually spends in the preparation and presentation of his expert testimony.

The principles of occupational safety and health have long been applied to industry, but it is only in recent times that serious consideration has been given to their application in the hospital. This interest coincided with the passage, in 1970, of the Occupatinal Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the government's first venture into general occupational safety and health.

The statute's purpose is “to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” In general, the Act permits the Secretary of Labor to promulgate occupational safety and health standards. The secretary or his authorized representative may, “with Out delay,” enter the premises of any employer who is covered by the Act, which includes virtually every private sector employer. The legislation applies to 5 million businesses and 57 million employees, who in a year suffer 14,000 deaths and 2 million disabling injuries or diseases related to their occupation.

The Boston University Center for Law and Health Sciences has recently completed a questionnaire survey of the country's eleven regional medical libraries (RML's). These libraries were so designated following passage of the Medical Library Assistance Act of 1965. The purpose of the program is to make the growing medical and scientific literature available to all “qualified persons” regardless of their geographical location. The statute provides, inter alia, that “qualilied persons and organizations shall be entitled to free loan services.“

The Center undertook this survey to determine what steps these libraries, which receive federal funding to help them perform as regional resources, were taking to make their collections available to those who needed to use them. All eleven libraries responded in some way to the questionnaire, although one, listed by H.E.W. as the “Midcontinental Regional Medical Library” in Omaha, Nebraska, responded that it was not a library at all, but only involved in “planning and coordinating” a library program.