In 1959, California became the first state to enact legislation protecting good Samaritans from tort liability under certain circumstances. While previously a good samaritan giving aid in an emergency could be held liable only if he acted unreasonably, there was no legislative mandate to affirmatively discourage an injured party from bringing suit against the good samaritan. Although few such cases can be documented, the absence of legislative protection was thought to work a serious detriment to the prompt rendition of aid in emergency conditions, since some medical practitioners might refrain from giving emergency aid for fear of being subjected to legal action. In response to this perceived situation, California enacted its legislation to encourage the giving of emergency aid and to “sufficiently allay [the good samaritan's] fears of legal action:”

Currently, good samaritan statutes exist in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. These statutes range from the very broad to the very specific, and each is supposedly designed to protect the good samaritan emergency care provider from frivolous litigation. However, developments in recent years have caused commentators to question whether the central purpose behind these statutes—to discourage legal action—has actually been achieved.

It is Recommended … That it be recognized by all organizations and associations concerned with smoking and health that the campaign against smoking is political and economic in character and requires decisions based on political and economic factors.

The only way we know today to stop cancer is to stop smoking. …

Approximately 45 million children engage in interscholastic athletics in the United States annually. The exact figure varies from year to year, and the growth of athletic participation indicates that the estimate may be low. Perhaps one percent of that number will receive medical care other than simple physical examinations or episodic treatment for trauma. In Michigan and Maryland, research has shown that fewer than 50 percent of the high schools have physicians in attendance for contact sports. Attendance by physicians at junior varsity and junior high school athletic contests is considerably less frequent. School-based physicians are vanishing, and other health professionals have not assumed responsibility for preventive medical care for scholastic athletes. Rather, in many instances, the “athletic trainer” has assumed responsibility for the health and condition of the athlete.

There can be no doubt that a tremendous amount of information is collected within the lifetime of all health care consumers, and today, people who are admitted to hospitals are seeking greater assurances that their relationship with the hospital and the physician is one of confidence and trust.

With the vast amount of personal information collected by hospitals and federal or state agencies, the effort to protect privacy has been gaining great momentum. Although Hippocrates attempted to address the issue within the ethical sphere of medicine, the legal right was first conceptually argued by U.S. Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren in an 1890 HARVARD LAW REVIEW article. The so called “right to privacy,” while not found directly in the Constitution, has served as the basis for numerous privacy decisions by the high court since that time.