Few healthy people welcome death, but most would welcome a quick, easy death to avoid suffering and the loss of control over their lives. We need to ask: what sort of human environment do we hope for at the end of our lives? What will the world and our own living in it look like when we know we are about to die? What kind of human relationships will sustain us through this most personal of life's experiences when we may become more dependent on others? Do we fear we will either be abandoned through lack of meaningful personal contact with significant others, or be actors in a tragi-comedy of pretense in which authentic forms of human expression are unattainable?

In countries where abortion is performed safely in medical settings, the vast majority of up to several generations of women have come to identify early abortion as a surgical experience—whether on an inpatient or outpatient basis, whether with local or general anesthetic or whether in a freestanding clinic or a hospital.

In this context, the introduction of RU 486 with prostaglandin (RU 486/PG) as an alternative method of early abortion will once more alter women's experience of abortion.

The first part of this paper explores the similarities and differences between an abortion with RU 486/PG and vacuum aspiration from a women-centered perspective. This comparison is limited by the fact that only women in France have so far had access to both methods, along with those who have participated in clinical trials, and that very few in-depth women's experiences and reactions to this method have been published.

Food insecurity in the United States is a profound public health challenge that hospitals are uniquely situated to address. Through the enactment of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, the Affordable Care Act provides a strong economic incentive for hospitals to actively confront food insecurity within the communities they serve. While there is a spectrum of nutrition interventions that hospitals can look to when engaging in these efforts, healthy food prescriptions and medically tailored meals are two particularly innovative and promising approaches that could help hospitals reduce readmissions by addressing the nutritional needs of vulnerable patients.

In most other nations, insurance for medical care is called sickness insurance, and it covers sick people. In the United States, we have “health insurance,” and its major carriers — commercial insurers, large employers, and increasingly government programs — strive to avoid sick people and cover only the healthy. This perverse logic at the heart of the American health insurance system is the key to reform debates.

Focusing on sick people versus healthy people might seem a strange way to view the coverage issue. Most discussions of insurance categorize people into other groupings: the insured versus the uninsured; Caucasian whites versus other racial and ethnic groups; men versus women; poor and low-income people versus everybody else; children, adults, and the elderly; or citizens versus immigrants and undocumented aliens. More recently, health researchers have begun talking about “vulnerable populations,” using most of the same demographic groupings and adding other illness-inducing factors such as social isolation, stress, and impoverished neighborhoods. But as I will show, insurance plans now use premiums, cost-sharing, and other design features in ways that indirectly divide each of these groups into the sick and the healthy, to the detriment of the sick. By shifting the costs of illness onto people who use medical care — that is, sick people — market-oriented reforms of the last few decades have eroded insurance in the name of strengthening it.

I think it is fair to say that there have been two overriding needs of the health care system in the United States for the past couple of decades. One of them is to provide an adequate minimal level of care for all, especially for the underinsured and for those who could be faced by catastrophic health care costs. That need points to an expansion of health care expenditures and to the creation of new programs and strategies. The second need is that of finding a permanent and effective way of controlling the constant escalation of health care costs, and of the proportion of health care costs in our overall economy. That need points to restraint and limitations, not constant expansion.

We are left, then, with two apparently contradiaory needs, each pointing to a major problem, but each standing, it would seem, directly in the path of the other.

Amid the action of the 2013 Super Bowl aired the usual array of high-priced advertisements. Most ads were original. Some were unusual. One regional ad, however, seemed distantly familiar. The 30-second commercial promoted the NJOY King electronic (or e-) cigarette1 to at least 10 million viewers in several major markets. It featured an attractive male model taking a drag from what looks like (and NJOY calls) a cigarette. He then slowly blows smoke to the tune of Foreigner’s “Feels Like the First Time.” Of course, the “smoke” does not come from burning tobacco. Rather, it is the water vapor produced by an e-cigarette as part of its nicotine delivery process. This, however, was not evident from the imagery. For those watching the broadcast, including thousands of minors, NJOY’s advertisement depicted what tobacco companies have not portrayed on television for decades: a person engaged in smoking behavior.

This article examines how federal law enforcement has responded to the opioid epidemic nationally and in a variety of locales. We focus in depth on two initiatives, including prosecution in opioid-death cases, undertaken by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut.

The question in my title—a deliberate inversion of Kuhse and Singer's now-famous question, “Should the baby live?”—is one that is being asked more and more frequently. As Gerald Gruman has observed:

The medical care needs of aged persons, and how we, as individuals and societies, will fulfill these needs in an era of a perceived scarcity of medical resources, are a frequent topic of discussion today. The “scarcity” of medical resources is frequently a given in discussions of allocation priorities.

The Diagnosis Confirmation Model (DCM) includes a dual-pricing mechanism designed to support value-based pricing of novel antibiotics while improving the alignment of financial incentives with their optimal use in patients at high risk of drug-resistant infections. DCM is a market-based model and complementary to delinked models. Policymakers interested in stimulating antibiotic innovation could consider tailoring the DCM to their reimbursement systems and incorporating it into the suite of incentives to improve the economics of antibiotics.

Telehealth is now a fundamental health approach to address health-related needs in a way that is consistent with the restrictions imposed by the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) globally.

This article examines how public health addresses alcohol use through marketing — place, product, promotion, and price. The article reviews current product trends and how restrictions on certain products designs may reduce youth consumption; how product availability may be restricted through zoning; and the current advertising landscape.

When infertility clinics offer money-back guarantees, they prefer to give them more delicate names such as “shared risk,” “warranty,” or “outcome” programs. We should not allow such daintiness to distract us from the bottom line of these programs which are all about the bottom line.

John Robertson and Theodore Schneyer defend such programs as special forms of insurance, what they call “risk-of-failure insurance.” They argue, in “Professional Self-Regulation and Shared-Risk Programs for In Vitro Fertilization,” that the criticisms of in vitro fertilization (IVF) shared-risk programs by the American Medical Association (AMA) and others are off the mark. It would be sufficient, Robertson and Schneyer contend, to develop guidelines for informed consent or protocols that discourage risky clinical procedures. They acknowledge that shared risk plans “present problems if not offered with full disclosure and attention to patient interests,” but they insist that “there is no reason why they cannot be implemented in an ethically sound way.”

Safe and healthy housing conditions are critical to improving population health, particularly for the most vulnerable – young children, senior citizens, and individuals with chronic illnesses and disabilities – who spend more time at home and are more susceptible to illness and injury. Across the country, millions of Americans are exposed to lead, radon, asbestos, volatile organic compounds, pests, mold, carbon monoxide, and tobacco smoke in the home, affecting the air they breathe and the water they drink. These household hazards are also associated with a wide range of illnesses and injuries, including asthma, cancer, falls, respiratory infections, and mental health issues. Legal and policy interventions can assist communities grappling with the adverse impacts of poor housing conditions and improve the health and safety of all residents, including vulnerable populations.

In July 1997, the voting representatives at the National Consensus Conference (NCC) on Bioethics in Health Research voted unanimously to adopt the proposed Guidelines for the Conduct of Health Research Involving Human Subjects in Uganda (Guidelines). This vote represented the culmination of a three-year journey towards the development of a coherent and cohesive framework for the ethical review of health research involving human subjects in Uganda.

Attendees at the NCC included both voting representatives and non-voting participants. Voting representatives had been designated by the institutional entity with which they were affiliated to represent that entity at the NCC and to voice the concerns and opinions of the entity and its constituents.

Mrs. K is a thirty-one-year-old Russian-speaking mother of two, who was brought in by ambulance after attempting suicide by jumping in front of train. Probable depression x months. Stressor: lost custody battle over older child. Current status: deep coma, ventilator-dependent, and prognosis grim. Next of kin is estranged husband; he demands participation in medical decision making. Legal proxy is patient's boyfriend; forcibly removed from the intensive care unit (ICU) for agitated behavior and alcohol intoxication.

I magine the difficulty for the ICU staff as it tries to patch together the broken body of Mrs. K, described above. If, as appears likely, the physicians’ efforts begin to fail, who will speak for this patient, who can no longer speak for herself, and determine the appropriate goals and limits of intensive medical care?

As a consequence of the problems caused by genetic discrimination, federal and state law makers are being pressured to pass a legislative remedy. A primary question is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) applies to (1) individuals with a potentially disabling genetic disorder who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic and may never become ill and to (2) healthy individuals who are carriers of genetic conditions. At present, this question has relevance principally for individuals with the genotype for single gene disorders, like Huntington disease and hemochromatosis, and to asymptomatic carriers of single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis. Although many such single gene conditions exist, the total incidence of these conditions in the U.S. population is less than 0.4 percent. However, the question concerning the applicability of the ADA will become increasingly important because genetic tests will almost certainly be developed in the near future for common multifactorial diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and certain forms of cancer.

Health research raises profound concerns of an ethical and legal nature — concerns primarily centered on how to balance researchers’ quest for scientific discovery against societal interest in protecting individuals whose participation makes the discovery possible. Particularly in a country such as Nigeria, which, not too long ago, suffered major abuse of research subjects (Pfizer’s clinical trial of Trovafloxacin and resulting death of eleven children in 1996), deploying a robust ethicolegal regime capable of curbing excesses and protecting research participants whilst contemporaneously not frustrating scientific progress is not an easy task. This is even more critical in the context of novel scientific endeavors, such as biobanking and genomic research, particularly when a significant pool of potential donors are inadequately informed about the processes involved in their participation or the result.

This article assesses the origins and spread of the Second Amendment sanctuary movement in which localities pass ordinances or resolutions that declare their jurisdiction's view that proposed or enacted state (or federal) gun safety laws are unconstitutional and therefore, local officials will not implement or enforce them. While it is important to assess Second Amendment sanctuaries from a legal perspective, it is equally as important to understand them in the context of a broader protest movement against any efforts to strengthen gun laws. As the gun violence prevention movement has gained strength across the United States, particularly at the state level, gun rights enthusiasts have turned to Second Amendment sanctuaries in order to create a counter narrative to the increasing political power of gun safety. By passing these ordinances or resolutions, local officials legitimize and fuel Second Amendment absolutism which poses real risks to public safety and democracy.