Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
1 - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2022
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Summary
As a distinct field of study and practice, health law is still relatively new, and its boundaries continue to be contested. As recently as 2006, Einer Elhague questioned whether health law could “become a coherent field of law.”1 The fact that Elhague’s musings appeared in a symposium dedicated to the idea that the “once vibrant … and fresh” subject of health law was haunted by a “specter of exhaustion” indicates the contested nature of the “field-ness” of this field.2 Its boundaries are even more hotly disputed. Is health law limited to the relationships among health care professionals, patients, the institutions where they meet, and the payers who finance their encounters? Or does it also encompass legal issues related to public health and the social determinants of health, which social epidemiology demonstrates3 play an even greater role than health care in shaping outcomes?4 As feminist health law scholars, we “view health law as an inherently … expansive field.”5 For the purposes of this volume, however, and in light of the potential for other areas – such as poverty law, housing law, and employment law – to generate Feminist Judgments books of their own, we have narrowed our focus to more traditional health law topics. Nonetheless, we view the insights of social epidemiology regarding the influence of social, economic, and environmental factors on health as “an invitation to engage with the rich literature of critical legal theories that view law as an expression of social power.”6
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten , pp. 1 - 16Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022