The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine burst onto the market and the legislative scene nearly simultaneously. Marketed as an amazing medical breakthrough, the vaccine GARDASIL prevents infection with four strains of Human Papillomavirus in nave populations; these four strains are responsible for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts. Although most agreed that the vaccine was a wonderful medical advancement with the potential to save women's lives, there was strong disagreement about and a vocal public response to legislative attempts to require girls to receive HPV vaccines for school attendance.

The strong public response to HPV vaccine mandates partially stemmed from the sense that this vaccine is different from previously mandated vaccines because it attempts to prevent disease whose sole route of transmission is through sexual contact. Most other diseases covered by mandated vaccines are spread through the air, with little an individual can do in altering their behavior to prevent infection.

Despite spending more on health care than every other industrialized country, the U.S. ranks 37th in health outcomes. These differences cannot be explained away with differences in age and income, or even with quality of care. And, the rate of growth in health care spending in the U.S. continues to increase. The share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) attributable to health care grew from 9% in 1980 to more than 17% in 2011. Health care costs are projected to account for more than one-fifth of our economy by 2021. Despite spending more and more, the U.S. does not have better health outcomes than other countries. Worse, our increasing spending is largely attributable to preventable conditions. More than 85 cents of every dollar spent on health in the U.S. are spent on the treatment and management of chronic diseases, such as those caused by preventable conditions related to obesity and tobacco use.

Commentators tout the societal benefits of research to conclude that people have a civic duty to participate in it. A review of several problems in research demonstrate the contrary and reveal why claims we are duty-bound to participate in research deter urgently needed efforts to tackle multiple entrenched deficiencies in it.

The Proceedings of the National Summit on Legal Preparedness for Obesity Prevention and Control is based on a two-part conceptual framework composed of public health and legal perspectives. The public health perspective comprises the six target areas and intervention settings that are the focus of the obesity prevention and control efforts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This paper presents the legal perspective. Legal preparedness in public health is the underpinning of the framework for the four “assessment” papers and the four “action” papers that are integral to the application of public health law to any particular health issue. In addition, this paper gives real-world grounding to the legal framework through examples that illustrate the four core elements of legal preparedness in public health that are at work in obesity prevention and control.

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains a hotly debated issue throughout the United States, and continues to capture the attention of government officials at both the state and federal levels. While the practice is currently legal in Oregon, some federal lawmakers and officials from the U.S. Department of Justice have attempted to outlaw that state's practice through legislation (e.g., the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999), or through a strained interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. And while several citizen groups throughout the United States have attempted but failed to legalize PAS through popular initiative, several state lawmakers have succeeded in specifically outlawing the practice. Yet even though physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains unlawful in every state except Oregon, there is ample evidence that American physicians throughout the United States have participated in PAS by providing their terminally ill patients with lethal prescriptions.

Commercial surrogacy presents complex legal issues; the problems that it does not present are those of high tech reproductive medicine. All the new techniques for overcoming infertility, such as in vitro fertilization and the like, are medically complex but—as long as they involve a married couple and no third-party donors—legally simple. Surrogacy is so medically uncomplicated that it can be done without any physician involvement, but it is the most legally complicated means of providing a baby for an infertile couple.

From a time in England when fathers could sell their children into slavery to a day in which the legal system supposedly protects the best interests of the child, the common law increasingly respects the rights of children as individuals with constitutional rights and not as chattels of their parents. If the courts accept commercial surrogacy as a legitimate enterprise, it seems that we have again reverted to the concept of child as chattel.

States have implemented a variety of legal and policy approaches to address the overdose epidemic. Some approaches, like increasing access to naloxone and connecting overdose survivors with evidence-based treatment, have a strong public health foundation and a compelling evidence base. Others, like increasing reliance on punitive criminal justice approaches, have neither. This article examines law and policy changes that are likely to be effective in reducing overdose-related harm as well as those that are likely to increase it.

In financial disputes involving research, the parties are traditionally individual researchers and their institutions, biotech and pharmaceutical companies, and other entities engaged in the commercial development of biomedical research. Occasionally, research subjects claim that researchers have misled them or misappropriated their biological materials to derive financial gain. The best known example is the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, decided in 1990.

With new developments in genomics, large-scale repositories of tissue and other biological specimens are increasingly important. Biobanks have been established by various researchers, commercial entities, health-care institutions, and even entire countries. Individuals who contribute specimens almost always retain no commercial interest in any resulting research and language to that effect is now customarily included in informed consent documents signed at the time the specimen is given. Suppose, however, that the research subjects actually collect the specimens themselves, recruit the researcher, and provide financial support for the research.

Preemption is a powerful strategy used by special interest groups to undermine strong, local public health standards. Currently, 20 states in the U.S. have preemption ordinances in place related to clean indoor air initiatives. These preemption laws are the direct result of an ongoing and aggressive campaign of tobacco companies to thwart clean indoor air initiatives, which ultimately, according to tobacco industry internal documents, cause significant reductions in their annual revenues. Clean indoor air policies have arisen from a greater understanding of the documented health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke and action by local government (city councils, county commissions, and boards of health) to protect the public from these hazards. The efforts of the tobacco industry undermine local authority and seek to shift policy action to the state and federal levels, where the industry has greater political influence.

By the beginning of 1988, nearly six hundred babies had been born through surrogate mothering arrangements. Although there have been a number of lawsuits concerning custody or challenging adoption laws that appear to prohibit payments to surrogates, the majority of surrogacy arrangements proceed without judicial involvement. Nevertheless, surrogate mothering has engendered considerable activity in state legislatures, as well as two bills in Congress to ban the practice (H.R.2433 and H.R. 3264) and hearings by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Wastes. Most recently, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released a report, Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. That report included the results of a survey of surrogate-mother matching services active in the United States in late 1987.

The escalating cost of health care has forced people to confront the possibility of rationing—forgoing beneficial care for patients so that the resources might be used either for other current or prospective patients or for entirely different things in life than health care. Rationing of some sort makes eminent sense, not just economically; only those who are fanatics about health and medicine would urge that everything possible be spent on health care for even the slightest marginal benefit. Yet actual rationing of health care is usually thought to exact high, or at least disturbing, ethical costs.

I will examine four of these costs here: (1) the sacrifice of physician loyalty to patients, (2) the substitution of misleading and discriminatory numerical measurements of medicine's human benefit for more sensitive qualitative judgments, (3) the unfair bite that rationing is likely to take first out of poor people's care before it affects wealthier patients, and (4) the general Substitution of public, group standards about life and health for the values and decisions of individuals.

The use of decision-making capacity assessments (DMCA) in clinical medicine is an underdeveloped yet quickly growing practice. Despite the ethical and clinical importance of these assessments as a means of protecting patient autonomy, clinicians, philosophers, and ethicists have identified a number of practical and theoretical hurdles which remain unresolved. One ethically important yet largely unaddressed issue is whether, and to what extent physicians ought to inform and obtain consent from patients prior to initiating a capacity assessment. In what follows, I address the following question: Must, or should, physicians obtain consent for capacity assessments? I argue that physicians have an ethical obligation to obtain express patient consent for capacity assessments, and in doing so, I challenge the predominant view which requires physicians to merely inform patients without obtaining consent. I then identify an underlying philosophical paradox that complicates the clinician's duty to obtain consent: in short, consent is needed for an assessment of one's ability to consent. Finally, I recommend a practical solution to this paradox of consent for capacity assessments by proposing a model of double consent from both the patient and health care representative.

Open any standard bioethics textbook, and therein can be found a host of subjects ranging from the abortion rights controversy to the morality of xenographic tissue transplantation. Just as there is a wide scope to the subject matter of bioethics, its practitioners come from a multitude of disciplines, including law, medicine, nursing, theology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And yet, despite a rich variety of investigators and methods, bioethicists overlook numerous subjects that deserve to be addressed. In particular, they neglect issues of public health, preventive medicine, and social medicine. Although topics such as physician-assisted suicide, prenatal genetic testing, and the ethics of new reproductive technologies constitute the contemporary canon of bioethics and deserve sustained analysis, these subjects are not so significant that they should eclipse other issues. For example, gun control policies, the regulation of food additives. immunization programs, prenatal care, leave programs enabling employees to care for dying relatives, the provision of nutrition and medical care to the homeless, and the use of emergency rooms by the most impoverished citizens are all topics neglected by bioethicists.

Most health professionals today would agree about the necessity of interdisciplinary health care for clients. The optimal division of labor, however, has been a source of concern if not outright disagreement.

Literature on “professional status” and on the interrelationships of health professionals abounds, possibly leading one to the impression that everything worth saying has already been said. However, developments in health care and in professional education are of a dynamic rather than of a static nature. For this reason alone a reconsideration of the roles and relationships of health care team members is justified from time to time.

Determining whether the health care system meets the needs of service recipients is only one important reason for studying role interactions.

The call for a public health approach to gun violence has largely ignored what role the nascent Second Amendment jurisprudence will play in hindering change. Given the state interest for infringing on Second Amendment rights is nearly always public safety, public health law doctrine provides an apt framework for analysis.

Health care insurance schemes, whether private or public, are notoriously unaccommodating to individuals with disabilities. While most nonelderly nondisabled persons in the U.S. are insured through private sources, coverage sources for nonelderly persons with disabilities have traditionally been a mix of private and public coverage. For all age groups, the employment-to-population ratio is much lower for persons with a disability than for those with no disability. Moreover, employed persons with a disability were more likely to be self-employed than those with no disability. As a group, therefore, nonelderly people with disabilities have not been as well positioned as others to obtain private health care insurance because in the U.S., acquiring such coverage usually is employer based.

This paper describes novel tobacco control laws passed in New York City in 2017. These laws are designed to improve the city's strategy of using price to decrease tobacco consumption, and over time, change the city's landscape by making tobacco less accessible.

Access to care has become a key and contentious issue in the Canadian health care system. In this article, I explore the role of Canadian courts in determining rights to access public health insurance (Medicare), beginning with a brief overview of the Canadian system and its distinguishing features, and then moving to discuss challenges to governmental limits on publicly-funded Medicare using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I argue that the Canadian courts are not, as is often charged, proactive in this area. I question whether the deference exhibited by courts to governmental limits on Medicare is justified given concerns about the fairness of the principles and processes followed by decision-makers. In sharp relief to the judiciary’s conservative approach to applications for better or timely access to publicly-funded Medicare is the recent Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) which upheld a right to buy private health insurance for “medically necessary” hospital and physician services.