OBJECTIVE: Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies.
METHODS: We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword \"circumcision\" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court.
RESULTS: We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%).
CONCLUSIONS: Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations.

The United States has a longstanding history of using laws to define the scope of government involvement in controlling personal matters related to sex and sexuality. Although the government serves a valuable role in protecting and promoting public health, sexual and reproductive health is unduly impacted by social stigma in ways that other fields of medicine are not. Consequently, this care is often singled out by legislation that limits rather than protects this care. Health care professionals are uniquely positioned to advocate for legal protection of the patient-provider relationship and for access to essential health care, including abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care.

This study examines voting in the 2022 United States congressional elections, contests that were widely expected to produce a sizable defeat for Democratic candidates for largely economic reasons. Based on a representative national probability sample of voters interviewed in both 2020 and 2022, individuals who changed their vote from one party\'s congressional candidate to another party\'s candidate did not do so in response to the salience of inflation or declining economic conditions. Instead, we find strong evidence that views on abortion were central to shifting votes in the midterm elections. Americans who favored (opposed) legal abortions were more likely to shift from voting for Republican (Democratic) candidates in 2020 to Democratic (Republican) candidates in 2022. Since a larger number of Americans supported than opposed legal abortions, the combination of these shifts ultimately improved the electoral prospects of Democratic candidates. New voters were especially likely to weigh abortion views heavily in their vote-shifting calculus. Likewise, those respondents whose confidence in the US Supreme Court declined from 2020 to 2022 were more likely to shift from voting for Republican to Democratic congressional candidates. We provide direct empirical evidence that changes in support for the Supreme Court, a nonpartisan branch of the federal government, are implicated in partisan voting behavior in another branch of government. We explore the implications of these findings for prevalent assumptions about how economic conditions influence voting, as well as for the relationship between the judiciary and electoral politics.

A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., concluding that isolated genes were not patentable subject matter. Beyond being a mere patent dispute, the case was a political and cultural phenomenon, viewed as a harbinger for the health of the biotechnology industry. With a decade of perspective, though, Myriad\'s impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter-while greatly transformed-only centered on Myriad in small part. The case had only a modest impact on patenting practices both in and outside the United States. And persistent efforts to legislatively overturn the decision have not borne fruit. The significance of Myriad thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided.

We apply a dynamic influence model to the opinions of the US federal courts to examine the role of the US Supreme Court in influencing the direction of legal discourse in the federal courts. We propose two mechanisms for how the Court affects innovation in legal language: a selection mechanism where the Court\'s influence primarily derives from its discretionary jurisdiction, and an authorship mechanism in which the Court\'s influence derives directly from its own innovations. To test these alternative hypotheses, we develop a novel influence measure based on a dynamic topic model that separates the Court\'s own language innovations from those of the lower courts. Applying this measure to the US federal courts, we find that the Supreme Court primarily exercises influence through the selection mechanism, with modest additional influence attributable to the authorship mechanism. This article is part of the theme issue \'A complexity science approach to law and governance\'.

暂无摘要。

In another tumultuous term of the United States Supreme Court in 2022-2023 a series of critical cases implicate instant and forthcoming changes in multiple fronts that collectively shift the national public health law and policy environment.

The landmark Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973 established a constitutional right to abortion. In June 2022, the Dobbs vs Jackson Women\'s Health Organization Supreme Court decision brought an end to the established professional practice of abortion throughout the United States. Rights-based reductionism and zealotry threaten the professional practice of abortion. Rights-based reductionism is generally the view that moral or ethical issues can be reduced exclusively to matters of rights. In relation to abortion, there are 2 opposing forms of rights-based reductionism, namely fetal rights reductionism, which emphasizes the rights for the fetus while disregarding the rights and autonomy of the pregnant patient, and pregnant patient rights reductionism, which supports unlimited abortion without regards for the fetus. The 2 positions are irreconcilable. This article provides historical examples of the destructive nature of zealotry, which is characterized by extreme devotion to one\'s beliefs and an intolerant stance to opposing viewpoints, and of the importance of enlightenment to limit zealotry. This article then explores the professional responsibility model as a clinically ethically sound approach to overcome the clashing forms of rights-based reductionism and zealotry and to address the professional practice of abortion. The professional responsibility model refers to the ethical and professional obligations that obstetricians and other healthcare providers have toward pregnant patients, fetuses, and the society at large. It provides a more balanced and nuanced approach to the abortion debate, avoiding the pitfalls of reductionism and zealotry, and allows both the rights of the woman and the obligations to pregnant and fetal patients to be considered alongside broader ethical, medical, and societal implications. Constructive and respectful dialogue is crucial in addressing diverse perspectives and finding common ground. Embracing the professional responsibility model enables professionals to manage abortion responsibly, thereby prioritizing patients\' interests and navigating between absolutist viewpoints to find balanced ethical solutions.

BACKGROUND: Researchers have rarely considered how public attention surrounding political events influences mental health. Specifically, in a politically polarized nation like the United States, it is possible that these events have a public mental health effect.
OBJECTIVE: This study examines the mental health effects associated with the 2018 U.S. Senate hearing and confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh using public survey data.
METHODS: We use the interview date included in CDC data from the 2014-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) to identify the effects of increased public attention on the Kavanaugh hearings and confirmation on the mental health of individuals who identify as female. We employ a triple difference model to control for possible confounding effects and target causality.
RESULTS: We find meaningful increases in both the number of \"not good\" mental health days reported and the probability of reporting any \"not good\" mental health days. On average, females reported 0.24 more poor mental health days during the one-month period surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation and hearings than women did in the same 1-month period in 2014. This change represents a nearly 10% increase in mental health burden. The results are robust to the inclusion of a range of covariates as well as alternate specifications. In addition, we derive estimates of the societal costs associated with the increased mental health burden linked to Brett Kavanaugh\'s confirmation.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the Kavanaugh confirmation and hearings were associated with a notable rise in mental health challenges, especially among women. These results extend beyond personal experience and illustrate the societal costs linked to the resulting increased mental health burden. Further research on similar events is warranted.

暂无摘要。