The recent general disenchantment with government control has focussed attention on the concept of occupational licensing. The logical place to begin a reappraisal of occupational licensing is in the field of medicine, where such licensing originated and where it has been most fully accepted.

Our position is that no rational or moral foundation for medical licensure exists and, therefore, we recommend the total abandonment of governmental licensing and the substitution of free market protections, including private certification. Medical licensing, and occupational licensing in general, is morally wrong and ineffectual in practice.

Recent developments in organ procurement have revived the much-debated role of markets in our health care system. The unique American health care system, with its presumption of universality alongside private health insurance and relatively limited federal and state programs, is in many ways consumer-driven today. We certainly tolerate more broad disparities in availability of care and in outcomes of care largely based on socioeconomic status than do many other developed countries, where notions of universal access are supported by broader public financing.

Transparency requires more than disclosure of data. It requires a mechanism and policy for conveying information to the public. In order for the aims of the excellent report of the FDA Transparency Working Group to be realized, a publicity initiative will need to accompany the plan of action. The FDA will need to actively convey information about the evidence concerning benefit-risk profiles of drugs, sometimes pointing out misleading claims by manufacturers or sponsors. In other cases, the FDA will need to make available its procedures, including possible conflicts of interest, not only in drug approval, but also in guidance documents and in rulemaking. Transparency as a process of letting the public see into the agency should be accompanied by a proactive strategy of distributing information about the products regulated by the agency.

American society tends to medicalize or criminalize social problems. Criminal justice reformers have made arguments for a positive role in the relief of poverty that are similar to those aired in healthcare today. The consequences of criminalizing poverty caution against its continued medicalization.

Resource finitude, cost containment, and a purchaser monopsony market have created public concern-about the moral and legal responsibility for quality assurance in health plans. Resource allocation and standards of care represent a clash of moral values in intensive care treatment. This essay advances a procedural model, based on legislation passed in Oregon, that could govern the incorporation of private sector health insurance plans in Oregon to assure democratic input from consumers, providers, and employers into a limited vision of individual entitlement to consume futile or inappropriate care in intensive care units (ICUs). The model, which I call the Oregonian ICU, presumes that rationing of care is implicit and not publicly disclosed under managed care. It focuses on maximizing the quality of limited benefits available in the basic managed care insurance tier. Limitations to futile and inappropriate care are developed on the basis of morally weighted prognostic scoring systems that inform the creation of negotiated private sector contracts.

This article reviews the relationship between managed care and public health. Managed care, with its seemingly infinite structural and organizational variation, dominates the modern American health-care system for the non-elderly U.S. population. Through its emphasis on standarhzed practice norms and performance measurement, coupled with industrial purchasing techniques, prepayment, risk downstreaming, and incentives-based compensation, managed care has the potential to exert considerable influence over the manner in which the health-care system is organized and functions. Given the degree to which the attainment of the basic public health goal of protecting the public against population health threats for which there are known and effective medical interventions depends on the successful interaction between public health policy and the medical care system, the importance of a viable working relationship between public health and managed care is difficult to overstate.

The potential for conflict between public health and medical care is nothing new; indeed, delineating the boundaries of public health to shape and influence medical practice has occupied the energies of policymakers and the medical industry for well over a century.

In his compelling novel Blindness, José Saramago tells us about victims stricken by a contagious form of blindness who were quarantined and came to see themselves as pigs, dogs, and “lame crabs.” Of course, they were all human beings - although unable to perceive themselves, or others, as members of the human community. The disciplines of bioethics, health law, and human rights are likewise all members of the broad human rights community, although at times none of them may be able to see the homologies, even when responding to a specific health challenge.

The boundaries between bioethics, health law, and human rights are permeable, and border crossings, including crossings by blind practitioners, are common. Two working hypotheses form the intellectual framework of this article: we can more effectively address the major health issues of our day if we harmonize all three disciplines; and American bioethics can be reborn as a global force by accepting its Nuremberg roots and actively engaging in a health and human rights agenda.

In 1848 Dorothea Dix, the famous 19th century advocate for the indigent mentally ill, appealed to the United States Congress to support the setaside of a very large tract of land that was to be used for the “Relief and Support of the Indigent Curable and Incurable Insane.” She stated:

Federal law often avoids setting minimum standards for women’s health and reproductive rights issues, leaving legislative and regulatory gaps for the states to fill as they see fit. This has mixed results. It can lead to state innovation that improves state-level health outcomes, informs federal health reform, and provides data on best practices for other states. On the other hand, some states may use the absence of a federal floor to impose draconian policies that pose risks to women’s and maternal health. Health reforms at the federal level must trod carefully to enable state innovation, while imposing foundational safeguards for promoting women’s health nationwide.

Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) in the medical community are generally lasting longer due to a number of factors, including an increase in the total volume of biomedical research, expanded federal regulatory requirements, and a rise in patient interest in participating as research subjects. Leading national and international initiatives promote clinical research in children. The primary impetus for these initiatives is the need for adequate data for clinical application of new products and treatment approaches in the pediatric population. Clinical investigations must maintain ethical conduct as an essential component of pediatric research.

Ethical issues associated with clinical research in general have received prominent public and scientific attention. Of particular interest is informed consent, or assent, as applied to pediatrics. There is little practical guidance concerning pediatric assent from legal and ethical disciplines; the law has played only a small role in few cases.

Medical care in the United States traditionally has focused on the treatment of disease rather than on its prevention. Heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, and other chronic diseases are the primary drivers of American health care costs; compared to other high-income countries, U.S. health indices are lowest and costs are highest.

A “triple aim” — “improving the individual experience of care, improving the health of populations, and reducing the per capita costs of care for populations” — has gained traction, as the social determinants of health (non-genetic, non-clinical factors including health behaviors, social and economic factors, and the physical environment) are recognized as having significant effects on health outcomes.

On April 16, 2007, Cho Seung-Hui used two semiautomatic handguns to kill 32 persons and then himself at Virginia Tech University in the largest campus shooting in U.S. history. Mr. Cho purchased his handguns from a pawnshop and a gun store in Virginia, where under state law a background check was conducted to determine whether he had any disqualifying criminal or mental health history. The paperwork for the background check was completed at the gun store, and the check itself was conducted through an “instant” system facilitated by a toll-free telephone number. The entire transaction took approximately 20 minutes. At no point was Mr. Cho asked why he wished to purchase the guns. And although he had been deemed a potential danger to himself by a state magistrate in 2005 – which should have disqualified his purchase of a gun under federal law – this information never reached those conducting the background check.

For at least the past three decades, injuries have been recognized as an important public health problem in the United States. In 2001, there were approximately 157,000 deaths due to injuries in the US. There were also almost 30 million non-fatal injury incidents.

Injuries have been defined as: “…any unintentional or intentional damage to the body resulting from acute exposure to thermal, mechanical, electrical, or chemical energy or from the absence of such essentials as heat or oxygen”. Within public health, the field of injury prevention and control is dedicated to reducing the burden of injuries on the lives of people around the world.

Injury prevention seeks to reduce injuries by: 1) identifying risk factors, 2) designing interventions to address the risk factors, 3) implementing those interventions, 4) evaluating their effectiveness, and 5) replicating those that work. As with many other public health problems, interventions can target factors associated with the human or host, vehicle or vector, and the physical or social environment.

Recently, due to a number of converging factors, there have been significant shifts in public policy regarding the legitimacy of treating chronic pain with opioids. Traditional tenets handed down in medical, dental, nursing, and pharmacy education created a distinct reluctance on the part of practitioners to prescribe opioids on a continual basis. Much has been written about the reasons for these attitudes. One of the barriers that is very consistently reported by prescribers is the fear of regulatory and legal repercussions to ongoing prescription of this class of medications. It is in this arena that sentinel changes have occurred, the most recent of which is the promulgation of a document prepared by the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), which suggests a set of guidelines meant to be endorsed or adopted by individual medical licensing boards on how to approach this particular aspect of practice. These guidelines, representing a broad consensus from a wide constituency, were developed in a relatively open forum and detail a balanced approach to the prescription of opioids for chronic pain.