This Article examines the issues and questions which underlie the debate over the admission of “medical treatises” into evidence. The admissibility of this type of evidence is at issue most often in litigation involving complex medico-legal issues. This Article outlines the evidentiary basis for admission of medical treatises and discusses the quality of medical treatises in an effort to determine what value to the fact-finder these treatises actually hold. The authors contend that there is an inherent untrustworthiness associated with medical treatises, but do not go so far as to suggest that medical treatises should never be admitted. The Article concludes that there is a need for greater caution in determining admissibility and recommends safeguards to better guarantee trustworthiness and reliability.

Current state laws regulating the licensure of dentists place severe restrictions upon the freedom of movement of practitioners. Most state laws were enacted during a period when a strong rationale for regulating public health and welfare existed. Today, these laws hamper the free movement of dentists and are anachronisms in an era of national standards and practices. The authors contend that the extant laws rest upon outdated assumptions and serve economic and protectionist goals rather than public health and safety.

This Article examines the history and application of the traditional justifications for state licensure and their present ramifications. The authors suggest that replacing the current regulatory system with a national clinical examination and a national licensure program will best serve the interests of the public and the dental profession.

As the climate of the health care industry has changed to one of cost-containment and competition through the growth of HMOs and PPOs, health care providers have become the subjects of antitrust litigation. One such case, Northwest Medical Laboratories v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oregon, involved a medical laboratory and a radiology center who claimed that they were victims of an illegal group boycott after defendant's pre-paid health plan denied them preferred provider status. The Oregon Court of Appeals, using the traditional antitrust analysis applied to other industries for decades, failed to consider the intricacies that exist within the health care industry. This result led to an inaccurate market share computation and an inadequate rule of reason analysis. This Comment examines the shortcomings of the Northwest Medical opinion and argues that, in applying the antitrust laws to the health care industry, courts in future cases must recognize and respect the unique features of the business of providing health care.

Recent surveys show an alarming rate of sexual exploitation of patients by psychotherapists. As such conduct often falls outside the scope of rape, which allows a defense of consent, the psychotherapist is not prosecuted. Although all sexual contact between therapist and patient is prohibited by codes of professional ethics, the licensing boards that enforce these codes do not possess adequate power to deter this behavior. Further, professional review boards have absolutely no authority over unlicensed therapists who sexually abuse their patients. As a result, licensed therapists who have been censured in one state may practice as unlicensed therapists in another state and continue to sexually abuse patients.

The only effective deterrent would be a uniform statute, adopted in all states, criminalizing this specific abuse of the unique therapist-patient relationship. Such a statute should include unlicensed therapists as potential offenders and consent to sexual contact should not be a defense. The statute also should provide for enhanced efforts to inform and protect victims. This Note first examines six of the nine criminal statutes that currently exist in order to show the full range of provisions presently in force to deter this conduct. This Note then proposes model provisions for a uniform statute.