The Case Against Health Courts

The Supreme Court's decision in the Health Care Case, NFIB v. Sebelius, gripped the nation's attention during the spring of 2012. This volume gathers together reactions to the decision from an ideologically diverse selection of the nation's leading scholars of constitutional, administrative, and health law.

This book examines the potential of litigation as a strategy to advance the right to health by holding governments accountable for these obligations. It asks who benefits both directly and indirectly—and what the overall impacts on health equity are. Included are case studies from Costa Rica, South Africa, India, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia.

This book provides an overview of the historical and theoretical foundations underlying mental health courts. It offers a thorough description of a mental health court operation, including the role of each court team member, and guides those seeking to establish a mental health court. The authors analyze the successes, failures, and long-term desirability of these courts.

"Since the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, individuals and organizations have increasingly turned to the courts to try to bring about policy change in a variety of areas, including health care. But although the outcomes of Supreme Court cases on health care issues are closely watched, can they effect actual change in policy? Health Care and the Charter explores the systematic use of Charter litigation in the area of health care and the ultimate policy impact of the resulting judicial decisions. Christopher P. Manfredi and Antonia Maioni examine three of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in recent years. Two of the cases - Eldridge (1997) and Auton (2004) - invited the Court to extend the scope of publicly funded services. By contrast, Chaouilli (2005) asked the Court to allow private health services. Eldridge and Chaoulli provided legal victories to rights claimants; Auton dealt a legal defeat to its initiators. This book explores the paths that brought litigants to the Court, the arguments and evidence they mustered to support their positions, and the substance of the victory or defeat the Court provided them. The volume then assesses the ultimate impact of these cases in both policy and political terms."--

Both historically and in the present, the Supreme Court has largely been a failure In this devastating book, Erwin Chemerinsky—“one of the shining lights of legal academia” (The New York Times)—shows how, case by case, for over two centuries, the hallowed Court has been far more likely to uphold government abuses of power than to stop them. Drawing on a wealth of rulings, some famous, others little known, he reviews the Supreme Court’s historic failures in key areas, including the refusal to protect minorities, the upholding of gender discrimination, and the neglect of the Constitution in times of crisis, from World War I through 9/11. No one is better suited to make this case than Chemerinsky. He has studied, taught, and practiced constitutional law for thirty years and has argued before the Supreme Court. With passion and eloquence, Chemerinsky advocates reforms that could make the system work better, and he challenges us to think more critically about the nature of the Court and the fallible men and women who sit on it.

The Court of Last Resort looks at decision making in a mental-health court and at the dilemmas of treating mental illness while protecting patients' legal rights. Carol Warren spent seven years studying hearings in a large California court where people who had been involuntarily committed to institutions for psychiatric treatment could petition for their release. In this book she confronts questions of whether mental illness is real or only a label for societal control, whether the government should be involved in committing the deviant to institutions, and how the interaction of judges, psychiatrists, families, police, and other individuals and agencies affect the court's administration of mental-health law. Though the cases in this book fall under California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Warren's analysis of conflicts between legal and medical models of behavior is of national and international importance both to sociologists and to the many professionals who work at the juncture of mental health and the law.

Both developing and developed countries face an increasing mismatch between what patients expect to receive from healthcare and what the public healthcare systems can afford to provide. Where there has been a growing recognition of the entitlement to receive healthcare, the frustrated expectations with regards to the level of provision has led to lawsuits challenging the denial of funding for health treatments by public health systems. This book analyses the impact of courts and litigation on the way health systems set priorities and make rationing decisions. In particular, it focuses on how the judicial protection of the right to healthcare can impact the institutionalization, functioning and centrality of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) for decisions about the funding of treatment. Based on the case study of three jurisdictions – Brazil, Colombia, and England – it shows that courts can be a key driver for the institutionalization of HTA. These case studies show the paradoxes of judicial control, which can promote accountability and impair it, demand administrative competence and undermine bureaucratic capacities. The case studies offer a nuanced and evidence-informed understanding of these paradoxes in the context of health care by showing how the judicial control of priority-setting decisions in health care can be used to require and control an explicit scheme for health technology assessment, but can also limit and circumvent it. It will be essential for those researching Medical Law and Healthcare Policy, Human Rights Law, and Social Rights.