In Ecuador we have the opportunity to convince the highest court in the land to grant Indigenous peoples the legal right to make the final decision on any oil, mining or hydroelectric project in their forests. If we win, we will not only take millions of acres of indigenous forests off the block for oil and mining companies in Ecuador, but can propel this legal precedent across the Amazon.
The Waorani of Pastaza protected , acres of their ancestral territory from an oil auction in and put a halt to the planned expansion of 16 new oil blocks deep into the central-south Amazon. We need to get letters to the Court and resources on the ground to ensure that Indigenous Peoples get to decide the future of the Amazon. Because what happens in the Amazon, matters everywhere. Helena St. The other major problem with any imposed information requirement is that it condemns many on the continuum of health literacy, and especially health numeracy, to receiving little or no help.
We fully support attempts to reduce health illiteracy and innumeracy, especially their decision-focused forms. However, it is too much to expect of a decision support tool — or a clinician — to overcome the limitations of previous education and socialization in these respects. This is not to say that a decision aid should not contain help in this respect, including guidance on how the person can best avail themselves of what it offers, and information on the bases of that offering.
It is to suggest that much of this should be provided on an opt-in basis. Nothing in what we have said is intended to imply that the community is not entitled to apply community-level criteria and weights to what it provides, or allows to be provided, to whom, under what conditions, and at what cost, in the pursuit of goals such as efficiency, equity and justice.
But that is life as lived in society. Trickier are the issues of social responsibility or morality which are not dealt with formally. Apart from issues of environmental and social impact such as those arising from hormonal treatments and opioids , there are all those that arise in resource-constrained and interdependent systems simply as a result of those constraints and interdependencies.
In these cases, we say two things. Those are tasks for the bodies politic and cultural, through education and debate. Second, that in order to be regarded as having made a high-quality decision, the individual should not be required to be informed about the social criteria they do select, other than having the processed BEANs available to them from a trustworthy source.
Normative checklists for decision support tools, such as those constructed in accordance with the guidelines of the IPDASi collaboration, 10 are clearly intended to promote person-as-patient empowerment. But most decision aids that comply with these guidelines are designed for use only within the context of shared decision making, in which the person is assigned the status of patient. In many cases, the support can be accessed only within the clinical encounter, or with provider permission.
They all perpetuate the idea that only a decision informed in a particular way and to a particular extent can be a good decision. For none of these will there be a definition that is not multi-dimensional and therefore preference-sensitive.
The question is to whose preferences should the definition be sensitive? Alaskans, like all Americans, are in the midst of an important national election. The next Supreme Court justice could fundamentally change the direction of the Court for years to come. Alaskans deserve to have a voice in that direction through their vote, and we will ensure that they have one. Supreme Court. My colleagues and I are committed to giving the American people a voice in the direction the court will take for generations to come.
We will move forward without delay. Why would we cut off the national debate on the next justice? Why would we squelch the voice of the populace? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the make-up of the Supreme Court?
Historically, in a presidential election year, when a U. Smith, Ark. And the Senate should once again exercise its Constitutional obligation and decide whether or not to consent to his choice. I would say that if this was a Republlcian president. March 17, I remain firm in my decision to exercise my Constitutional authority and withhold consent on any nominee to the Supreme Court submitted by President Obama.
Therefore, the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by an individual nominated by the next president of the United States. Should a nominee come before the full Senate for consideration, I will weigh that individual based on their character, intellect, conservative record, and respect for the U.
Constitution and vote accordingly. Risch said he opposed Garland for reasons of merit, including concern for gun rights. April 16, Note: Grassley references his statements in July that if he were chairman he would not take up a nominee during this election year.
Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government. This is not about the nominee, it is about giving the American people and the next president a role in selecting the next Supreme Court justice.
We kept our promise. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president. Paul said he opposed any Obama nominee, indicating it was on merit and regardless of whether there was a Senate vote. Kennedy, a Senate candidate in , said hypothetically he would meet with Garland but reject him on merit.
March 16, , with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland , McConnell stood his ground : It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice. The president nominates, we decide to confirm. We think the important principle in the middle of this presidential year is that the American people need to weigh in and decide who's going to make this decision.
Not this lame duck president on the way out the door, but the next president. And he tells "Meet the Press": "The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that's the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment.
More: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's last wish: 'I will not be replaced until a new president is installed'. May 28, McConnell is asked what he would do if a Supreme Court seat came open in More: Conservatives, liberals mull next Supreme Court battle with memories of July 27, A year and a half before the end of George W.
0コメント