Mental health care advance directives are gaining popularity nationwide. Following a growing trend, the Washington State Legislature has recently passed a law allowing patients to draft mental health care advance directives that could be irrevocable. Patients who sign an irrevocable directive essentially waive their fundamental right to refuse treatment in the future. The United States Supreme Court has held that waivers of fundamental rights must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. However, as passed, Washington's new law contains insufficient safeguards to guarantee such a waiver. This Comment proposes that the Washington State Legislature amend this law the require two additional protections: a "rights advocate" to explain the potential waiver of rights, and a written warning in the advance directive form. These safeguards will help ensure that patients make knowing and intelligent waivers of their fundamental right to refuse treatment.

To date, five state high courts have resolved disputes over frozen preembryos. These disputes arose during divorce proceedings between couples who had previously used assisted reproduction and cryopreserved excess preembryos. In each case, one spouse wished to have the preembryos destroyed, while the other wanted to be able to use or donate them in the future. The parties in these cases invoked the constitutional right to privacy to argue for dispositional control over the preembryos; two of the five cases were resolved by relying on this right. The constitutional right to privacy protects intimate decisions involving procreation, marriage, and family life. However, when couples use donated sperm or ova to create preembryos, a unique circumstance arises: one spouse--the gamete provider--is genetically related to the preembryos and the other is not. If courts resolve frozen preembryo disputes that involve non-gamete providers based on the constitutional right to privacy, they should find that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses the interests of both gamete and non-gamete providers. Individuals who create preembryos with the intent to become a parent have made an intimate decision involving procreation, marriage, and family life that falls squarely within the the right to privacy. In such cases, the couple together made the decision to create a family through the use of assisted reproduction, and the preembryos would not exist but for that joint decision. Therefore, gamete and non-gamete providers should be afforded equal constitutional protection in disputes over frozen preembryos.

Two sets of federal regulations, the "Common Rule" and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, govern human subject research that is either federally-funded or involves FDA regulated products. These regulations require, inter alia, that: (1) researchers obtain informed consent from human subjects, and (2) that an Institutional Review Board (IRB) independently review and approve the research protocol. Although the federal regulations do not provide an express cause of action against researchers, research subjects should be able to bring informed consent and malpractice actions against researchers by establishing a duty of care and standard of care. Researchers owe human subjects a duty of care analogous to the special relationship between physicians and patients. The federal regulations should provide the minimum standard of care for informed consent in human subject research, and complying with them should be a partial defense. In contrast, expert testimony should establish the standard of care for researcher malpractice, and IRB approval should be a partial defense.

Heated debates often surround the introduction of an important new technology into society, as exemplified by current controversies surrounding human cloning and privacy protection on the Internet. Underlying these controversies are disruptions to central socio-legal values caused by these new technologies. Whether new technologies will eventually be accepted by society is often contingent on the reaction of the legal system. This mandates the formulation of a conceptual framework for understanding and structuring the way the law should react in cases surrounding the adoption of new technologies. By using the case study of artificial insemination this Article develops the tools for structuring the legal role in the acceptance process of new technologies. The three-century controversy surrounding the innovation of artificial insemination results from the innovations' disruption of the socio-legal value of the family. Artificial Insemination--although invented in the eighteenth-century--was rarely used until the 1930s, and only legalized in the 1960s. Its application to surrogacy and its use by unmarried women extends the controversy into the twenty-first century. The case study demonstrates the nature of the relationship among the technological, social and legal acceptance processes of new technologies, and analyzes the legal acceptance debate. The conceptual framework produced is useful in understanding and structuring the legal role in current debates surrounding the introduction and acceptance of new technologies.

With the U.S. Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, all U.S. jurisdictions have now adopted some form of evidentiary privilege for confidential statements by patients to psychotherapists for the purpose of seeking treatment. The majority of states, following the decision of the Supreme Court of California in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, have also adopted some form of duty by psychotherapists to breach confidentiality and warn potential victims against foreseeable violence by their patients. Largely unresolved is whether there should be a dangerous patient exception to the evidentiary privilege parallel to the Tarasoff exception to confidentiality. This Article argues that exception to the evidentiary privilege should be evaluated separately from the exception to confidentiality. Whether or not a Tarasoff duty to warn existed at an earlier time, exception to the evidentiary privilege should be made only where psychotherapists' testimony is necessary to prevent future harm to patients or identified potential victims. Applying this standard, the dangerous patient exception generally would not apply in criminal actions against patients, but would apply only in proceedings for the purpose of protecting patients or third parties, such as restraining order hearings or proceedings to hospitalize patients.

Unintended pregnancy is a serious problem in the United States. Most private insurance plans do not pay for contraception even though they pay for other prescription drugs and devices. This Article argues that this pattern constitutes sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. It discusses the reasons this issue has been neglected and suggests ways federal and state officials might remedy this common form of gender discrimination.

The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) does not state whether it prohibits discrimination against individuals who are infected with HIV but asymptomatic. Some courts have held that the language of the ADA is unambiguous and does not cover asymptomatic HIV as a disability because the virus is not an "impairment" that substantially limits a "major life activity." Other courts have looked behind the statutory language and found that Congress intended to protect asymptomatic individuals with HIV because the virus impairs one's ability to procreate and/or engage in sexual relations. This Comment argues that asymptomatic individuals with HIV are indeed protected under the ADA, but that the analytic framework thus far employed by the courts is flawed. Asymptomatic HIV is a protected disability not because it is independently debilitating, but because the prejudices and fears of other may prevent HIV-infected persons from fully participating in society. The ADA was enacted to prevent exactly this type of discrimination.