This is a law book written for a general audience. Tigar* has been a law professor most of his life; in these pages one can learn much from his vast legal and historical knowledge.
Multiple chapters are spread out over five “mythologies”: Racism, Criminal Justice, Free Expression, Worker Rights and International Human Rights.
His discussion of these mythologies is not neutral; he has a point of view and it’s generally from the left.
His chapter on race starts with the 1944 Supreme Court decision upholding the war-time internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast. The Court accepted the myth that these Americans might help the Japanese government even though there was no supporting evidence. Mythologies often “justify a leap from perceived danger to repression.” Of course, he discusses the myths behind “separate but equal” and why it was so hard to end that doctrine.
Tigar draws upon his own experience in his discussion of the criminal justice system as he represented many criminal defendants in different states. He believes that “fair trial” is one of the myths of the system and he writes about several such myths.
Free expression in the marketplace of ideas is another illusion he exposes, identifying four ways it has been undermined. These are state repression, control of the means of communication, the private property norm, and treating information as a form of property.
Not surprisingly, worker rights are the fourth mythology. There was a time when workers didn’t have any rights. Employers claimed that any effort to organize for higher wages was a form of extortion, especially if backed up by action. Tigar’s long explanation of how this evolved cannot be summed up; it has to be read.
His fifth mythology of international human rights is trickier because it raises the issue of whether suppression of human rights in other countries can be brought in US courts. It depends…..
If you want some provocative thinking in these days of the doldrums, this is the book for you.
*B.A., 1962, J.D., 1966, Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley. Professor Tigar was an associate and partner at Williams & Connolly and partner in his own firm, Tigar & Buffone. Since 1996, he has been associated in law practice with his wife Jane B. Tigar. He has been an acting professor of law at UCLA, Joseph D. Jamail Chair in Law at the University of Texas, and holder of an endowed professorship at Washington College of Law, where he is professor emeritus. He has been a visiting professor at the Faculté de Droit et des sciences politiques, Université Paul Cezanne, Aix-en-Provence.
“President Barack Obama learns about the results of the experimental Ebola vaccine which just completed Phase 1 clinical trials from Dr. Nancy Sullivan, Chief of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Vaccine Research Center’s Biodefense Research Section. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci accompanied the tour.” (Unknown photographer, NIH)
DECEMBER 2, 2014 | CLIP OF PRESIDENT OBAMA ON EBOLA RESPONSE This clip, title, and description were not created by C-SPAN. User Clip: Obama Dec 2 2014 USER-CREATED CLIP APRIL 9, 2020
There may and likely will come a time in which we have both an airborne disease that is deadly. And in order for us to deal with that effectively, we have to put in place an infrastructure — not just here at home, but globally — that allows us to see it quickly, isolate it quickly, respond to it quickly. And it also requires us to continue the same path of basic research that is being done here at NIH that Nancy [Dr. Nancy Sullivan] is a great example of. So that if and when a new strain of flu, like the Spanish flu, crops up five years from now or a decade from now, we’ve made the investment and we’re further along to be able to catch it. It is a smart investment for us to make. It’s not just insurance; it is knowing that down the road we’re going to continue to have problems like this — particularly in a globalized world where you move from one side of the world to the other in a day.
Saturday was such a beautiful day here. We were out walking (what else?), this time in a local nature park. The site was closed to cars but not to people. Fortunately, there weren’t too many walkers that day so we only had to divert our path a few times. One man was fishing in the creek. A family was biking.
And then there were the geese. Usually there are many geese in the park but only a few were around on this day. They seemed to be in their own form of social distancing. This goose was eating on its own after being chased away by a connected pair. It seemed to want to gather food near us. As we backed up, it came closer. It seemed to want company and comfort as if it was looking for its family. I softly reminded it to keep a safe distance.
I wondered if animals are as prone to get the corona virus as we humans are. I read that a dog was recently diagnosed with the virus but then I read that dogs were being trained to sniff out the virus in those without symptoms. There are so many questions about this pandemic. But one thing to remember is that social distancing can help us contain the spread.
I hope the goose eventually finds its natural family. I hope that we all are safe and healthy and remember that while at a distance isn’t our natural way of interacting, it is necessary at this time.
In this video, we take a look at COVID-19 antibody tests, which can reveal whether someone was previously infected with the novel coronavirus — and explain why a positive or negative result may not always be so easy to interpret.
President Donald Trump falsely claimed that his administration was not initially able to meet the increasing demand for ventilators to treat COVID-19 patients because “we weren’t left ventilators by a previous administration.”
The United States has not done more COVID-19 testing than “every country combined,” as President Donald Trump claimed in remarks during a recent press briefing.
In the Kansas Republican Senate primary, a super PAC supporting Rep. Roger Marshall inaccurately describes Club for Growth as an “anti-Trump organization” in a TV ad attacking Marshall’s rival, Kris Kobach.
Defending his early response to the coronavirus pandemic, President Donald Trump wrongly claimed that in late February, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was saying, “This is no problem. This is going to blow over.”
A claim being pushed on social media and by an organization skeptical of vaccines is using a military study to falsely suggest that the flu vaccine increases someone’s risk of contracting COVID-19.
Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute LLC (FCS), an oncology group headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida, was charged with conspiring to allocate medical and radiation oncology treatments for cancer patients in Southwest Florida, the Department of Justice announced. This charge is the first in the department’s ongoing investigation into market allocation in the oncology industry.
According to a one-count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, Florida, FCS participated in a criminal antitrust conspiracy with a competing oncology group in Collier, Lee, and Charlotte counties (Southwest Florida). FCS and its co-conspirators agreed not to compete to provide chemotherapy and radiation treatments to cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Beginning as early as 1999 and continuing until at least 2016, FCS entered into an illegal agreement that allocated chemotherapy treatments to FCS and radiation treatments to a competing oncology group. This conspiracy allowed FCS to operate with minimal competition in Southwest Florida and limited valuable integrated care options and choices for cancer patients.
The Antitrust Division also announced a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) resolving the charge against FCS, under which the company admitted to conspiring to allocate chemotherapy and radiation treatments for cancer patients. FCS has agreed to pay a $100 million criminal penalty —the statutory maximum— and to cooperate fully with the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation. FCS has also agreed to maintain an effective compliance program designed to prevent and detect criminal antitrust violations.
“Today’s resolution, with one of the largest independent oncology groups in the United States, is a significant step toward ensuring that cancer patients in Southwest Florida are afforded the benefits of competition for life-saving treatments,” said Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division. “For almost two decades, FCS and its co-conspirators agreed to cheat by limiting treatment options available to cancer patients in order to line their pockets. The Antitrust Division is continuing its investigation to ensure that all responsible participants are held accountable to the maximum extent possible.”
“The FBI has no tolerance for medical providers who stand to profit by criminally exploiting cancer patients,” said Michael McPherson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Tampa Field Office. “We will not turn a blind eye while executives pad their pockets to the detriment of vulnerable Americans. We will use every tool at our disposal to ensure that the public has access to a competitive marketplace for healthcare.”
Additionally, the agreement includes a non-compete waiver aimed at increasing competition in the treatment of cancer patients in Southwest Florida. Under the agreement’s terms, FCS has agreed not to enforce any non-compete provisions with its current or former oncologists or other employees who, during the term of the DPA, open or join an oncology practice in Southwest Florida.
This charge is the result of an ongoing federal antitrust investigation into market allocation and other anticompetitive conduct in the oncology industry, which is being conducted by the Antitrust Division and the FBI’s Tampa Field Office – Fort Meyers RA.
The Florida Office of the Attorney General separately announced today that, in connection with its own independent investigation, FCS agreed to settle civil claims that it violated Florida antitrust laws.
Anyone with information on market allocation, price fixing, bid rigging, or other anticompetitive conduct in the health care or any other industry should contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or visit www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html. If you believe that you were a victim of this crime, please visit http://www.justice.gov/atr/victims-rights.
“C-SPAN is committing to airing live each of the Supreme Court’s just-announced schedule of oral arguments for May, which will be held by teleconference. The audio of the arguments will be accessible live via one of the C-SPAN TV networks, online via C-SPAN.org, and on the free C-SPAN Radio app, which will allow them to be heard via anyone’s cell phone. Photo and name IDs of the justices and counsel will accompany the audio feed on television; name IDs will be provided on radio.
The Court will hear oral arguments by telephone conference on May 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 in a limited number of previously postponed cases. In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely. Below is additional information concerning the order of business on the morning of argument.
The Court will use a teleconferencing system that will call counsel the morning of argument. All counsel for the cases to be argued that day will be called simultaneously at approximately 9:15 a.m. and will all be placed on a conference call with the Clerk of the Court, Scott Harris, to receive any last-minute instructions and to ask any remaining questions they may have. Once that briefing is completed, the phone lines for counsel will be muted, and counsel will remain on this same line until approximately 9:50 a.m. At that time, counsel will all be moved to the main conference call to await the beginning of argument.
At 10 a.m.[Eastern], the Justices will enter the main conference call, and the Marshal of the Court, Pamela Talkin, will cry the Court. The Chief Justice will call the first case, and he will acknowledge the first counsel to argue. Following the usual practice, the Court generally will not question lead counsel for petitioners and respondents during the first two minutes of argument. Where argument is divided and counsel represents an amicus or an additional party, the Court generally will not ask questions for one minute. At the end of this time, the Chief Justice will have the opportunity to ask questions. When his initial questioning is complete, the Associate Justices will then have the opportunity to ask questions in turn in order of seniority. If there is time remaining once all Justices have had the opportunity to question counsel, there may be additional questioning.
Once the time for the first counsel’s argument has expired, the Chief Justice will thank counsel for their argument, and acknowledge the next attorney. This process will continue until argument in the case is complete. Counsel for the petitioner in each case will be allotted three minutes for rebuttal. If there is a second case to be argued that day, the Chief Justice will call that case promptly after the end of the first argument, and the same process will be followed. The Marshal will announce the conclusion of arguments.
*Contemplation of Justice: The United States Supreme Court Building Commission selected James Earle Fraser to sculpt two statues beside the steps of the entrance to the Supreme Court Building. Fraser completed preliminary models in 1933 and over the next year, he continued to hone his work. The sculptures were installed in 1935, a month after the building opened. Fraser described the female figure, Contemplation of Justice, to the left of the main steps as “a realistic conception of what I consider a heroic type of person with a head and body expressive of the beauty and intelligence of justice.” A book of laws supports her left arm and a figure of blindfolded Justice is in her right hand.
Editor’s Note: For those of you with children and grandchildren interested in science and the future, do not forget NASA station, NASA.gov!
As the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases accelerates in the United States, nurses on the front lines of the health care response have found themselves in unprecedented positions, making high-stakes decisions for patients and their own personal lives.
“We in uncharted territory in response to the magnitude of the pandemic,” says Cynda Rushton, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Nursing and Berman Institute of Bioethics known as an international leader in nursing ethics. “It’s a time of great stress and uncertainty, and nurses are rising to the challenge.”
“We know that nurses are the backbone of American health care, and often its heart and soul,” the site says. “The COVID-19 pandemic is testing all of us, but nurses are on the front lines. This space will be available 24/7 until America exits this crisis. Join us. Share your knowledge, experience, and challenges about working on the front lines of a pandemic. We know you are overworked, understaffed, possibly heartbroken and anxious, but always courageous. Feeling part of a community, even a virtual one, can help.”
Rushton recently spoke with the Hub about the conditions and decisions encountered daily by nurses who are wrestling with the massive health care challenges posed by COVID-19.
How has nursing changed as the U.S. begins to confront the COVID-19 pandemic?
Nurses’ roles are now more important than ever. Nurses are often the last thread of compassion for patients. They’re the ones doing the screenings, taking care of the critically ill, implementing triage protocols, communicating to families, and attending to the dying. Nurses in every role are impacted. They’re being asked to work in areas of the hospital that aren’t their normal specialty. They’re providing telehealth consultations. They’re being redeployed to learn new skills and take new roles — as safety officers, and taking care of critically ill patients. They’re making triage plans operational. We’ve had to reallocate our resources in profound ways, and nurses are innovating and leading in the midst of the crisis.
From an ethical standpoint, what new challenges are nurses facing?
For nurses, our ethical framework has focused on the well-being of individual patients. Historically, decisions were made based on the autonomy of patient’s preferences and values. As the pandemic worsens, these decisions will be made using triage protocols. We have to enlarge our ethical perspective to more fully integrate a public health framework that maximizes the good for more people and minimizes the harm, so that people most likely to benefit from scarce resources receive them.
That shift leaves nurses feeling like they’re abandoning their individual patients. They’re not able to provide the level of care they’re used to. The gap between what they can do and what they believe they should do creates moral distress, a sense that they’re compromising their integrity.
In the midst of this crisis, it’s necessary to reconsider what fairness and justice means, and to recalibrate our ethical obligations in response to the severe conditions.
What exactly are those obligations?
They’re very complex. Nurses always have obligations to the patient in front of them, but the pandemic imposes so many limitations. We can’t say, “Whatever you prefer is available,” but we can say, “Here’s how I’m able to help you with the resources we have.” It might be that I can offer my knowledge and skills to relieve your symptoms and help you make decisions, or provide options for palliative care or spiritual support, or simply listen to your fears and concerns.
At the same time, nurses have to consider how we can benefit more people. This often means making room for sicker patients by discharging patients who would under other circumstances be admitted. Moment-to-moment decisions are required on how to use equipment, medications, and resources when there aren’t enough for everyone.
And what obligations do nurses have to themselves and their own families?
We always begin with patients as our first priority in our professional ethical framework. That doesn’t mean we don’t have obligations to our own well-being and families. Nurses are grappling with questions like, “Am I potentially causing harm to my family by coming home from work every day?” and “How do I balance the needs of my loved ones with the endless needs of patients?”
The stakes are very high, and unfortunately there are no good answers. Part of being able to find integrity here is accepting the reality of our current situation and living with uncertainty—acknowledging we’re making decisions under constrained and difficult circumstances. However, the American Nurses Association Code of Ethics is clear: Nurses have the same obligations to self as to others. Investment in one’s well-being is not optional; it’s a moral mandate.
Older adults with COVID-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus, have several “atypical” symptoms, complicating efforts to ensure they get timely and appropriate treatment, according to physicians.
COVID-19 is typically signaled by three symptoms: a fever, an insistent cough and shortness of breath. But older adults — the age group most at risk of severe complications or death from this condition ― may have none of these characteristics.
Instead, seniors may seem “off” — not acting like themselves ― early on after being infected by the coronavirus. They may sleep more than usual or stop eating. They may seem unusually apathetic or confused, losing orientation to their surroundings. They may become dizzy and fall. Sometimes, seniors stop speaking or simply collapse.
“With a lot of conditions, older adults don’t present in a typical way, and we’re seeing that with COVID-19 as well,” said Dr. Camille Vaughan, section chief of geriatrics and gerontology at Emory University.
The reason has to do with how older bodies respond to illness and infection.
“Underlying chronic illnesses can mask or interfere with signs of infection,” he said. “Some older people, whether from age-related changes or previous neurologic issues such as a stroke, may have altered cough reflexes. Others with cognitive impairment may not be able to communicate their symptoms.”
Recognizing danger signs is important: If early signs of COVID-19 are missed, seniors may deteriorate before getting needed care. And people may go in and out of their homes without adequate protective measures, risking the spread of infection.
Dr. Quratulain Syed, an Atlanta geriatrician, describes a man in his 80s whom she treated in mid-March. Over a period of days, this patient, who had heart disease, diabetes and moderate cognitive impairment, stopped walking and became incontinent and profoundly lethargic. But he didn’t have a fever or a cough. His only respiratory symptom: sneezing off and on.
The man’s elderly spouse called 911 twice. Both times, paramedics checked his vital signs and declared he was OK. After another worried call from the overwhelmed spouse, Syed insisted the patient be taken to the hospital, where he tested positive for COVID-19.
“I was quite concerned about the paramedics and health aides who’d been in the house and who hadn’t used PPE [personal protective equipment],” Syed said.
Right, Jean-Jacques Lequeu (1757–1826) He Is Free, 1798 or 1799 Pen and black ink, brown and red wash. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Departement des Estampes et de la photographie.
The exhibition was presented at the Petit Palais, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris, from 11 December 2018 to 31 March 2019. Exhibition curators were Corinne Le Bitouzé and Christophe Leribault and scientific collaborators were Laurent Baridon, Jean-Philippe Garric, and Martial Guédron. The curator of the exhibition at the Morgan is Jennifer Tonkovich, Eugene and Clare Thaw Curator of Drawings and Prints.
In 1825, after struggling for nearly a decade to find a buyer for his drawings, Jean-Jacques Lequeu (1757–1826) donated 823 sheets to the Print Department of the Royal Library in Paris. Although Lequeu defined himself as an architect and began his career working on building sites, he spent the majority of his life as a government draftsman shifting between bureaucratic offices before being forced to retire on a meager pension. His gift to the Royal Library reflected a hidden dimension of Lequeu’s draftsmanship. Throughout his life, he worked on his own, producing animated self-portraits, plans for revolutionary monuments, teaching manuals, explorations of the body, and over one hundred designs for visionary architectural projects. The drawings in his portfolio evince remarkable skill and creativity, an inventiveness inspired by both classical and contemporary writings, and the artist’s own vivid imagination.
Born during the reign of Louis XV (r. 1715–74), Lequeu was a witness to the death throes of the ancien régime, the upheavals brought about by the French Revolution, and the new order established under Napoleon’s empire. His work, created in solitude and fueled by self-study, reflects the opportunities and vicissitudes of his troubled times and a vision of architecture that defied academic boundaries.
Stay connected with us from home by exploring our online exhibitions, virtual programs, and more. We have selected a few highlights for you below!
Online Exhibition | Beethoven 250: Autograph Music Manuscripts by Ludwig van Beethoven
While Mozart seems to have written down his compositions fully formed, Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) continually examined, refined, and reworked his musical ideas. His music manuscripts often reveal many revisions—sometimes taking the form of a turbulent swirl of deletions—and his sketches document his creative process, demonstrating a continual exploration of motivic ideas that the composer would later flesh out into complete scores.
From the Video Archive | The Nomadic Eye: Traveling through Thomas Gainsborough’s Landscapes
Thomas Gainsborough’s paintings and drawings grant the viewer the perspective of a traveler wandering along a winding path encountering both the familiar and the enigmatic. In this illustrated lecture (held on December 9, 2015) Professor Mark Hallett, Director of Studies at The Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art, takes us on a tour of Gainsborough’s pastoral views and suggests how we might best understand and appreciate the pictorial world that the artist created in and through his landscapes.
A federal court entered a permanent injunction halting a purported “ozone therapy” center in Dallas, Texas, from offering unproven treatments for coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the Department of Justice announced today.
In a civil complaint and accompanying court papers filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the Department of Justice alleged that the defendants, Purity Health and Wellness Centers and one of the firm’s principals, Jean Juanita Allen, fraudulently promoted so-called ozone therapy as a treatment for COVID-19. The defendants agreed to be bound by a permanent injunction barring them from representing that ozone could be used to treat or cure COVID-19. The order was entered by U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay in Dallas.
“The Department of Justice will not stand by and permit the fraudulent promotion of supposed COVID-19 treatments that do no good and that could be harmful,” said Assistant Attorney General Jody Hunt of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We are working with law enforcement and agency partners to stop those who attempt to profit by selling useless products during this pandemic.”
“This defendant preyed on public fear, peddling bogus treatments that had absolutely no effect against COVID-19,” said U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox for the Northern District of Texas. “As we’ve said in past COVID-19 civil cases: the Department of Justice will not permit anyone to exploit a pandemic for personal gain.”
According to court filings, Allen told a caller posing as a potential customer that although ozone could be dangerous, Purity’s treatment was safe even for children, would sanitize anything, and would eradicate viral or bacterial infections.
The court filings alleged that Allen claimed Purity’s ozone treatments – which she asserted would increase oxygen in the blood, making it impossible for viruses to manifest – were 95 percent effective even for someone who had tested positive for COVID-19. She claimed a team of “doctors” had recommended an “ozone steam sauna” for someone with COVID-19.
