In this book, Steven Yaffee examines the Endangered Species Act as an example of prohibitive policy, an extreme form of government regulation that has been used increasingly in recent years, especially in the environmental area.

The Netherlands is the only country in the world in which euthanasia, under narrow-defined circumstances, is legally permissible. Considerable attention has been paid over a number of years to the problem of regulating it and information has been systematically collected concerning actual practice. Therefore the Dutch experience is of interest not only to the Dutch, but to anyone who is considering wether or not to make euthanasia a legal practice. This book is written for a reader without specific knowledge of law. The central focus of the book is on Dutch law pertaining to euthanansia, but it also considers the moral and legal principles that have played a role in the Dutch debate, the available evidence bearing on actual practice and on the effectiveness of legal control. It ends with some reflections on the problem of the 'slippery slope' and the question whether the Dutch experience is 'exportable'. It includes translations of the relevant legislation (including proposed reforms) and of three leading cases.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a defining event of the 21st century. It has taken over eighteen million lives, closed national borders, put whole populations into quarantine and devastated economies. Yet while COVID-19 is catastrophic, it is not unique. Children who have been home-schooled during COVID-19 will almost certainly face another pandemic in their lifetime - one at least as bad-and potentially much worse-than this one. The WHO has referred to such a future (currently unknown) pathogen as “Disease X”. The defining feature of a pandemic is its scale-the simultaneous threat to millions or even billions of lives. That scale leads to unavoidable ethical dilemmas since the lives and livelihood of all cannot be protected. But since one of the most powerful ways of arresting the spread of a pandemic is to reduce contact between people, pandemic ethics also challenges some of our most widely accepted ethical beliefs about individual liberty and autonomy. Finally, pandemic ethics brings vividly to the foreground debates about the structure of society, inequalities, disadvantage and our global responsibilities. In this timely and vital collection, Dominic Wilkinson and Julian Savulescu bring together a global team of leading philosophers, lawyers, economists, and bioethicists. The book reviews the COVID-19 pandemic to ask not only 'did our societies make the right ethical choices?', but also 'what lessons must we learn before Disease X arrives?'

If indeed scientists and technologists, especially economists, set much of the agenda by which the future is played out, and I think they do, then the student of scientific methodology and public ethics has at least three options. He can embrace certain scientific methods and the value they hold for social decisionmaking, much as Milton Friedman has accepted neoclassical econom ics. Or, he can condemn them, regardless of their value, much as Stuart Hampshire has rejected risk-cost-benefit analysis (RCBA). Finally, he can critically assess these scientific methods and attempt to provide solutions to the problems he has uncovered. As a philosopher of science seeking the middle path between uncritical acceptance and extremist rejection of the economic methods used in policy analysis, I have tried to avoid the charge of being "anti science". Fred Hapgood, in response to my presentation at a recent Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, said that my arguments "felt like" a call for rejection of the methods of risk-cost-benefit analysis. Not so, as Chapter Two of this volume should make eminently clear. All my criticisms are construc tive ones, and the flaws in economic methodology which I address are uncovered for the purpose of suggesting means of making good techniques better. Likewise, although I criticize the economic methodology by which many technology assessments (TA's) and environmental-impact analyses (EIA's) have been used to justify public projects, it is wrong to conclude that I am anti-technology.

Economists offer rigorous quantitative analyses of how the institutional design and purpose of the WTO (and its progenitor, the GATT) affect economic development. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established partly to support economic development in developing countries through international trade. This goal has been elusive, with some questioning the WTO's ability to achieve such a goal. In this volume, leading scholars in the economics of international trade offer rigorous quantitative analyses of how the institutional design and purpose of the WTO (and its progenitor, the GATT) affect economic development. The volume begins with analyses of market access concessions that have been or could be exchanged between developing and developed countries, from a formal framework for incorporating non-tariff measures into a model for analyzing a multilateral trade agreement to an examination of the MFN (most-favored nation) free rider problem. Contributors then develop new theoretical and econometric approaches for understanding key aspects of trade liberalization under the GATT/WTO that are of particular relevance to economic development, considering such topics as achieving cooperation in eliminating prohibitive trade barriers and the effect of China's export subsidies on its dramatic growth in exports. Finally, the book considers two significant new issues that arose from the Uruguay round, from which the WTO was formed: the TRIPS agreement, regulating intellectual property; and the resolution of trade disputes with and without litigation. Taken together, these analyses shed new light on the relationship between trade liberalization and economic development as well as the WTO's effectiveness.

This text analyses the international law and international organisations that have been constructed to regulate the worldwide proliferation of weapons technologies, particularly those that have been classified as weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

When cannabis tincture was withdrawn from the medical establishment in the UK in 1973, cannabis became regulated solely as an illicit drug. Within a decade cannabis-based drugs were back in the clinic. The UK is one of the biggest producers of medicinal cannabis, but few patients have access to these medicines. High-profile cases of parents campaigning for access to cannabis oil for severe and rare forms of epilepsy in their children are the most recent in a long line of controversies over cannabis and cannabis-based medicines. With mounting questions about patient access, the effectiveness of international drug control systems, and the role of expert advice, it is crucial to understand how we have arrived at this situation. While the historical literature has focused on cannabis as an illicit substance, Remedicalizing Cannabis considers the botanical product and its potential to yield medical applications. Investigating the remedicalization of cannabis, Taylor explores the process whereby boundaries shift between illicit drug and licit medicine. Basing her arguments on archival material from expert committees, researchers, and activists and in-depth interviews with key players, Suzanne Taylor traces the issues and interests involved in this process, demonstrating the important roles of changing scientific knowledge, expert advice, industry, clinical trials, and patient activism. Remedicalizing Cannabis investigates the evolving tensions that have brought us to the current situation and demonstrates the role of history in understanding today’s debates about cannabis.