Diary Prequel Package — page 126

Senator Arlen Specter Senator Patrick Leahy September 1, 2005 asked to explain why he blocked President Reagan from referring to the views of our nation leading scientific experts, why he substituted his own uninformed scientific judgment for th and whether he regrets contributing to a climate of unsubstantiated fear. Judge Roberts also should be asked to explain his actions in the context of how he v the appropriate role of scientific evidence in the formation of law and policy. One importar question is whether he would now defer to the medical judgment of public health officials, ; failed to do in 1985. This issue came before the Supreme Court in Schoo! Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 US. 273 (1987), which involved a school teacher with tuberculosis w had been fired from her job. In that case, the Court held: In the context of the employment of a person handicapped with a contagious disease agree with the amicus American Medical Association that this inquiry should includ "findings of facts, based on reasonable medical judgments given the state of medical knowledge about the nature of the risk (how the disease is transmitted) ... and the probabilities the disease will be transmitted ...." In making these findings, courts normally should defer to the reasonable medical judgment of public health officials. Similarly, the case of Bragdon v, Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), involved a patient wi HIV whose dentist had refused to treat her. In that case, the court stated: In assessing the reasonableness of [the dentist's] actions, the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes Health, are of special weight and authority.'* Another important question relates to the role of scientific certainty in regulatory anc judicial decision-making. In 1985, Mr. Roberts appeared unwilling to take any position on| transmission in the absence of complete scientific certainty. He applied a standard that requ scientists to prove a negative, a requirement that can be impossible to satisfy. But the Supreme Court must make decisions in the absence of total scientific certain For example, in the recent case of Roper v. Simmons, (125 S.Ct. 1183), the Court held the d penalty to be unconstitutional when applied to those who commit crimes under the age of 18 reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on an array of studies and expert opinions that "tend[ed] to confirm" the limited maturity and sense of responsibility of juveniles under 18. 2 4rline, 480 U.S. 273, 288 (1987). Emphasis added. '° Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 650 (1998). The Court continued: "The views of these organizations are not conclusive, however. A health care professional who disagrees with tl prevailing medical consensus may refute it by citing a credible scientific basis for deviating the accepted norm." /d. The Court then found that there should be a remand to allow this k 2. PR Sig ae x < bee.