Improving global health conditions has been one of the most important and difficult challenges for the world community. Despite concerted efforts by international organizations, like the World Health Organization, great disparities in health conditions remain between developed and developing countries, as well as within those countries. The World Health Organization has achieved some successes through its Health for All strategy; however, it can and should encourage member nations to enact national and international laws to protect and promote the health status of their populations. A comparison to the lawmaking efforts in other areas by international organizations indicates that WHO may have the authority and the means to institutionalize efforts to improve global health conditions.

This Article discusses the rights of prisoners, pretrial detainees, and the involuntarily committed to receive high-cost medical treatments. More specifically, the Article analyzes U.S. Supreme Court and lower court case law dealing with the medical care rights of those in state custody and argues that, under a proper understanding of this case law, the financial considerations of states should play no role in determining the rights of these people to receive high-cost medical care. Finally, the Article defends the current medical care standard against various critiques.

Recent news stories, medical journal articles, and two state voter referenda have publicized physicians’ providing their patients with aid-in-dying. This Note distinguishes two components of aid-in-dying: physician-assisted suicide and physiciancommitted voluntary active euthanasia. The Note traces these components’ distinct historical and legal treatments and critically examines arguments for and against both types of action. This Note concludes that aid-in-dying measures should limit legalization initiatives to physician-assisted suicide and should not embrace physician-committed voluntary active euthanasia.

Environmental destruction and its attendant effects on the animal world, including human beings, has moved to the forefront of United States and worldwide policy. The effect of this deterioration on human health is unclear. Much debate focuses on the cases of cancer, along with other diseases, that are environmentally induced. Congress has responded with various environmental laws. These laws focus primarily on controlling chemicals placed into the environment, largely by industry. This Note proposes that such a singular focus is inadequate and ultimately costly. A more sensible and efficient strategy to environmental protection places emphasis on controlling inputs to the productive process before the need arises to contain such substances. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (“TSCA“) takes this approach. This Note reviews the means by which TSCA attempted to accomplish its goals and concludes that TSCA's implementation has largely been ineffective. The Note then discusses three possible explanations for TSCA's failure. Finally, the Note proposes how TSCA might be made more effective in regulating new chemicals.