A discourse-theoretic approach to negotiated rulemaking

In 1996 and in 1997, Congress ordered the Secretary of Health and Human Services to undertake a process of negotiated rulemaking, which is authorized under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, on three separate rulemaking matters. Other Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, have also made use of this procedure. As part of the program to reinvent government, President Clinton has issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to engage in some negotiated rulemaking procedures. I present an analytic, interpretative and critical approach to looking at the statutory and regulatory provisions for negotiated rulemaking as related to issues of democratic governance surrounding the problem of delegation of legislative power. The paradigm of law delineated by Jürgen Habermas, which sets law the task of achieving social or value integration as well as integration of systems, provides the background theory for a critique of such processes. My research questions are two. First, why should a citizen obey a regulation which is the result of negotiation by directly interested parties? Second, what is the potential effect of negotiated rulemaking on other institutions for deliberative democracy? For the internal critique I argue that the procedures for negotiated rulemaking will not produce among the participants the agreement and cooperation which is the legislative intent. For the external critique I argue that negotiated rulemaking will not result in democratically-legitimated regulation. In addition, the practice of negotiated rulemaking will further weaken the functioning of the public sphere, as Habermas theorizes it, as the central institution of deliberative democracy. The primary implication is the need to mitigate further development of administrative agencies as isolated, self-regulating systems, which have been loosened from the controls of democratic governance, through the development of a robust public sphere in which affected persons may achieve mutual understanding. ^

Preinterventional screening of the TAVI patient: how to choose the suitable patient and the best procedure.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a novel therapy, which has transformed the management of inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). It is also a proven and less invasive alternative therapeutic option for high-risk symptomatic patients presenting with severe AS who are otherwise eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement. Patient age is not strictly a limitation for TAVI but since this procedure is currently restricted to high-risk and inoperable patients, it follows that most patients selected for TAVI are at an advanced age. Patient frailty and co-morbidities need to be assessed and a clinical judgment made on whether the patient will gain a measureable improvement in their quality of life. Risk stratification has assumed a central role in selecting suitable patients and surgical risk algorithms have proven helpful in this regard. However, limitations exist with these risk models, which must be understood in the context of TAVI. When making final treatment decisions, it is essential that a collaborative multidisciplinary "heart team" be involved and this is stressed in the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Choosing the best procedure is contingent upon anatomical feasibility, and multimodality imaging has emerged as an integral component of the pre-interventional screening process in this regard. The transfemoral route is now considered the default approach although vascular complications remain a concern. A minimal vessel diameter of 6 mm is required for currently commercial available vascular introducer sheaths. Several alternative access routes are available to choose from when confronted with difficult iliofemoral anatomy such as severe peripheral vascular disease or diffuse circumferential vessel calcification. The degree of aortic valve leaflet and annular calcification also needs to be assessed as the latter is a risk factor for post-procedural paravalvular aortic regurgitation. The ultimate goal of patient selection is to achieve the highest procedural success rate while minimizing complications and to choose patients most likely to derive tangible benefit from this procedure.

Aperçu général de la gestion de 1825 à 1838 : Rapport présenté par la commission administrative

Société d'encouragement au travail en faveur Israélites indigents du Bas-Rhin

Additional surgical procedure is a risk factor for surgical site infections after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

PURPOSE: Surgical site infections (SSI) are associated with increased costs and length of hospital stay, readmission rates, and mortality. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for SSI in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: Analysis of 35,432 laparoscopic cholecystectomies of a prospective multicenter database was performed. Risk factors for SSI were identified among demographic data, preoperative patients' history, and operative data using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: SSIs after laparoscopic cholecystectomy were seen in 0.8 % (n = 291) of the patients. Multivariate analysis identified the following parameters as risk factors for SSI: additional surgical procedure (odds ratio [OR] 4.0, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.2-7.5), age over 55 years (OR 2.4 [1.8-3.2]), conversion to open procedure (OR 2.6 [1.9-3.6]), postoperative hematoma (OR 1.9 [1.2-3.1]), duration of operation >60 min (OR 2.5 [1.7-3.6], cystic stump insufficiency (OR 12.5 [4.2-37.2]), gallbladder perforation (OR 6.2 [2.4-16.1]), gallbladder empyema (OR 1.7 [1.1-2.7]), and surgical revision (OR 15.7 [10.4-23.7]. SSIs were associated with a significantly prolonged hospital stay (p < 0.001), higher postoperative mortality (p < 0.001), and increased rate of surgical revision (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Additional surgical procedure was identified as a strong risk factor for SSI after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, operation time >60 min, age >55 years, conversion to open procedure, cystic stump insufficiency, postoperative hematoma, gallbladder perforation, gallbladder empyema, or surgical revision were identified as specific risk factors for SSI after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.