Picture 1 of 1

Stock photo

Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten (Paperback or Softback) - Picture 1 of 1

Feminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions Ser.: Feminist Judgments : Health Law Rewritten by Lindsay Wiley (2022, Trade Paperback)

Bargain Book Stores (1129196)

99.2% positive Feedback

Price:

US $48.17

Approximately£36.26

+ $10.50 postage

Estimated delivery Tue, 27 May - Fri, 30 May

Returns:

No returns, but backed by the eBay Money Back Guarantee.

Condition:

New

Format: Paperback or Softback. Condition Guide. Item Availability.

About this product

Product Identifiers

PublisherCambridge University Press

ISBN-101108816924

ISBN-139781108816922

eBay Product ID (ePID)8057256095

Product Key Features

Number of Pages400 Pages

Publication NameFeminist Judgments : Health Law Rewritten

LanguageEnglish

Publication Year2022

SubjectHealth

TypeTextbook

Subject AreaLaw

AuthorLindsay Wiley

SeriesFeminist Judgment Series: Rewritten Judicial Opinions Ser.

FormatTrade Paperback

Dimensions

Item Height0.9 in

Item Length9 in

Item Width5.9 in

Additional Product Features

Intended AudienceCollege Audience

LCCN2022-030483

Dewey Edition23

IllustratedYes

Dewey Decimal344.73041

Table Of Content1. 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.

SynopsisThis 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., This volume provides an alternate history of health law by rewriting key judicial opinions from a feminist perspective. Leading scholars demonstrate how feminist analysis can transform law in a field where paternalism, stereotypes, and the public-private divide shape decisions about patient autonomy, coordination of care and health care financing.

LC Classification NumberKF3821.F46 2022