This short work examines what the Hippocratic Oath said to Greek physicians 2400 years ago and reflects on its relevance to medical ethics today. Drawing on the writings of ancient physicians, Greek playwrights, and modern scholars, each chapter explores one passage of the Oath and concludes with a modern case discussion. This book is for anyone who loves medicine and is concerned about the ethics and history of the profession.
This edited collection examines corruption in the public sector, assessing case studies from across the world to provide an international perspective on this global issue. Providing a broad overview of public sector corruption, including local and national perspectives, this volume will appeal to scholars of public policy and corruption worldwide.
This book examines the use of presidential power during the War on Terror. Justin DePlato joins the debate on whether the Constitution matters in determining how each branch of the federal government should use its power to combat the War on Terror. The actions and words of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama are examined. DePlato's findings support the theory that executives use their own prerogative in determining what emergency powers are and how to use them. According to DePlato, the Presidents argue that their powers are implied in Article II of the Constitution, not expressed. This conclusion renders the Constitution meaningless in times of crisis. The author reveals that Presidents are becoming increasingly cavalier and that the nation should consider adopting an amendment to the Constitution to proffer expressed executive emergency powers.
A history and legal analysis of vigilantism in Montana in the 1860s, from a state Supreme Court justice and legal historian. Historians and novelists alike have described the vigilantism that took root in the gold-mining communities of Montana in the mid-1860s, but Mark C. Dillon is the first to examine the subject through the prism of American legal history, considering the state of criminal justice and law enforcement in the western territories and also trial procedures, gubernatorial politics, legislative enactments, and constitutional rights. Using newspaper articles, diaries, letters, biographies, invoices, and books that speak to the compelling history of Montana’s vigilantism in the 1860s, Dillon examines the conduct of the vigilantes in the context of the due process norms of the time. He implicates the influence of lawyers and judges who, like their non-lawyer counterparts, shaped history during the rush to earn fortunes in gold. Dillon’s perspective as a state Supreme Court justice and legal historian uniquely illuminates the intersection of territorial politics, constitutional issues, corrupt law enforcement, and the basic need of citizenry for social order. This readable and well-directed analysis of the social and legal context that contributed to the rise of Montana vigilante groups will be of interest to scholars and general readers interested in Western history, law, and criminal justice for years to come. “[Justice Dillon’s] book reads like a Western. Dillon masterfully sets the stage for the rise of the Montana vigilantes by bringing alive the people who created and lived in [mining] towns. There are heroes, villains, shady characters, and more than a few politicians, businessmen, lawyers and judges. What sets Dillon’s book apart from historical texts and fictional tales is that he provides legal analyses and explanations of the trials, sentences, due process and procedures of the day . . . And shed[s] grisly light on the details of the hangings. Dillon’s unique background as an attorney and judge and his downright dogged research are what makes this complex story so engaging. The prose is clear, crisp and gets to the point. . . . The book is satisfying because it answers contemporary nagging questions about the law regarding the vigilantes and the hangings.” —Gregory Zenon, Brooklyn Barrister “Dillon’s analysis of the vigilantes of Bannack, Alder Gulch, and Helena in Montana Territory is the most detailed, insightful, and legally nuanced yet produced. . . . This book is a model for historians to follow when dealing with 19th-century criminal proceedings. Establishing historical context includes examining the laws in books as well as the law in action.” —Gordon Morris Bakken, Great Plains Research
How early American Catholics justified secularism and overcame suspicions of disloyalty, transforming ideas of religious liberty in the process. In colonial America, Catholics were presumed dangerous until proven loyal. Yet Catholics went on to sign the Declaration of Independence and helped to finalize the First Amendment to the Constitution. What explains this remarkable transformation? Michael Breidenbach shows how Catholic leaders emphasized their churchÕs own traditionsÑrather than Enlightenment liberalismÑto secure the religious liberty that enabled their incorporation in American life. Catholics responded to charges of disloyalty by denying papal infallibility and the popeÕs authority to intervene in civil affairs. Rome staunchly rejected such dissent, but reform-minded Catholics justified their stance by looking to conciliarism, an intellectual tradition rooted in medieval Catholic thought yet compatible with a republican view of temporal independence and church-state separation. Drawing on new archival material, Breidenbach finds that early American Catholic leaders, including Maryland founder Cecil Calvert and members of the prominent Carroll family, relied on the conciliarist tradition to help institute religious toleration, including the Maryland Toleration Act of 1649. The critical role of Catholics in establishing American churchÐstate separation enjoins us to revise not only our sense of who the American founders were, but also our understanding of the sources of secularism. ChurchÐstate separation in America, generally understood as the product of a Protestant-driven Enlightenment, was in key respects derived from Catholic thinking. Our Dear-Bought Liberty therefore offers a dramatic departure from received wisdom, suggesting that religious liberty in America was not bestowed by liberal consensus but partly defined through the ingenuity of a persecuted minority.
