A Legislator under Surveillance: The Creation and Implementation of Swiss Banking Legislation 1910-1934

This paper analyses how banking regulation was introduced in Switzerland - one of the world's most prominent financial centres - which remained in place until the beginning of the twenty-first century. It shows that the law adopted on 8 November 1934 is a perfect example of capture of the regulator by the regulated. Essentially a political response in the context of the economic crisis of the 1930s, it largely reflected the interests of banking circles by limiting the intervention of the State as much as possible. The introduction of the new legislation was facilitated by the temporary weakness of Swiss banking circles, as they depended on the State to delay or prevent the collapse of many major credit institutions. They did not manage to derail the law as they had two decades earlier when they scuppered the federal bill on banks drawn up between 1914 and 1916. But this time they were better organized and more united, and intervened all the more effectively in the legislative process itself. The 1934 law is thus distinctive in that it made no structural changes to the architecture of the financial centre but merely codified its practices through flexible legislation meant to reassure the public. The law was aimed less at controlling banking activity than at keeping - thanks to skilfully calibrated political concessions - the State from having to intervene more directly in the internal management of banks or in the fixing of interest rates and the export of capital.

Late removal of retrievable caval filters.

The advent of retrievable caval filters was a game changer in the sense, that the previously irreversible act of implanting a medical device into the main venous blood stream of the body requiring careful evaluation of the pros and cons prior to execution suddenly became a "reversible" procedure where potential hazards in the late future of the patient lost most of their weight at the time of decision making. This review was designed to assess the rate of success with late retrieval of so called retrievable caval filters in order to get some indication about reasonable implant duration with respect to relatively "easy" implant removal with conventional means, i.e., catheters, hooks and lassos. A PubMed search (www.pubmed.gov) was performed with the search term "cava filter retrieval after 30 days clinical", and 20 reports between 1994 and 2013 dealing with late retrieval of caval filters were identified, covering approximately 7,000 devices with 600 removed filters. The maximal duration of implant reported is 2,599 days and the maximal implant duration of removed filters is also 2,599 days. The maximal duration reported with standard retrieval techniques, i.e., catheter, hook and/or lasso, is 475 days, whereas for the retrievals after this period more sophisticated techniques including lasers, etc. were required. The maximal implant duration for series with 100% retrieval accounts for 84 days, which is equivalent to 12 weeks or almost 3 months. We conclude that retrievable caval filters often become permanent despite the initial decision of temporary use. However, such "forgotten" retrievable devices can still be removed with a great chance of success up to three months after implantation. Conventional percutaneous removal techniques may be sufficient up to sixteen months after implantation whereas more sophisticated catheter techniques have been shown to be successful up to 83 months or more than seven years of implant duration. Tilting, migrating, or misplaced devices should be removed early on, and replaced if indicated with a device which is both, efficient and retrievable.