The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Libby Rozbruch
Libby Rozbruch is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Psychology. The rapid introduction of advanced technology in surgery has had a significant impact on clinical practice. With its growing application, the robotic surgery device has had to meet new demands of different types of surgery, and this transition has not been entirely trouble-free. Specifically, malfunction of the robotic device in surgery presents an issue regarding the complicated legal roles and responsibilities of the various involved parties. The principles of law that are binding upon professional liability in medicine are exactly the same for robotic surgery. The complexity of litigation associated with it stems from the difficulty of determining liability given that an integral part of a patient’s treatment is the use of a sophisticated medical device. [1] Therefore, in the case of an undesirable outcome, liability can fall on either the surgeon performing the surgery or on the manufacturer of the robotic device, or both. As a result, litigation associated with robotic surgery often combines medical malpractice law and products liability law, though the two are completely separate.[2]
0 Comments
 By Bryce Klehm
Bryce Klehm is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying History. Tags: Russia, International Relations, Lobbying, Trump The Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, passed into law in 2012, has proven to be one of the United States’ most effective tools for fighting human rights abusers. The story behind the act began when the largest foreign investor in Russia, William Browder, hired Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to investigate possible corruption and extortion in various Russian companies in 2007. When Magnitsky uncovered a $230 million corruption scandal directly linked to the Kremlin, he was harassed, arrested in front of his family, imprisoned, and beaten to death. [1] His death was a blatant example of corrupt policing within Russia. A July 2011 report by the Human Rights Council also found a conflict of interest because Magnitsky’s captors were the same police officers he had exposed for corruption. [2] William Browder vowed to avenge Magnitsky’s death and expose deep-rooted corruption within the Kremlin. The story of the Kremlin’s endemic corruption begins in 2003, when President Vladimir Putin began to control Russia’s oligarchs. Putin dramatically imprisoned the richest oligarch in Russia, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and then demanded payments from the rest of Russia’s richest men. Since then, the wealthy in Russia have been unwaveringly linked to the Kremlin, creating a massive corruption system. [3] Though Browder’s efforts to expose corruption within Russia were effective, he felt he needed to do more to punish Sergei Magnitsky’s murderers.  By Alana Mattei
Alana Mattei is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). In 2014, officials made a choice that haunted the residents of Flint, Michigan for years to come. It’s been almost four years since the water flowing from taps in Flint became unsafe, undrinkable, and the cause of a major public health crisis. At first, this crisis dominated the news cycle, but as of today it has been largely displaced. While the story no longer makes headlines on a daily basis, Americans are reminded occasionally that all, or at least part, of Flint still lacks access to clean drinking water years later. In November of 2017, tap water was still not drinkable for many residents. Although the contaminated Flint River was no longer the city’s water source, water coming from the new clean source still needs to pass through the corroded pipes which leaked lead into the water. [1] |
