This course permits students to examine intensively several crucial problems in the legal regulation of medicine. It pays particular attention to legal problems relating to bioethical issues (e.g., informed consent, advance directives) and to legal attempts to affect the quality of medical care (through, for example, the law of malpractice). The course is taught jointly by a professor from Law School (Carl Schneider) and a professor from the Medical School, the School of Public Health, and the Department of History (Joel Howell). Fourteen law students and fourteen fourth-year medical students will be admitted. At the heart of this innovative course lies its comprehensive program to bring the students of two often-hostile professions together in intensive mutual education. That effort has in past begun by having law students round with attending physicians at the hospital and write reports on the legal and bioethical aspects of what they observed. That effort continued by joining law students and medical students in classes for ten hours a week. The medical students were given a crash course in legal analysis, and then law and medical students discussed together a series of cases raising difficult questions in the allocation of power between doctor and patient, the doctor’s duty to treat patients, the decision to end medical treatment, the allocation of organs for transplantation, and medical malpractice. At the beginning of the course, each medical student was paired with a law student. In each week of the month the law and medical students met together, the teams participated in an exercise. In the first week, teams were assigned to represent either a kidney-dialysis clinic or a patient and to negotiate a contract fully establishing the legal relationship between doctor and patient. In the second week, each team was assigned to represent either the state or a Dr. Kevorkian-like defendant in an oral argument testing the constitutionality of the Michigan Assisted-Suicide Act. The medical student was required to make the oral argument, while the law student was responsible for writing the brief and preparing the medical student for the oral argument. In the third week, students wrote their own living wills (which were then discussed in class). In the fourth week, medical students were given a hypothetical patient’s chart and asked to write a report to a prospective plaintiff’s attorney analyzing whether malpractice had been committed. The medical student in each team was then required to represent they hypothetical doctor and to negotiate a settlement of a malpractice suit. This year, classes are expected to follow a similar pattern, although the instructors reserve the right to continue to experiment with new subjects and exercises. Grades will be based on the brief, class performance, and on the exercises. Because the class depends on the pairing of each medical student with a law student the class may not be dropped.