Physicians have long aided their patients in dying in an effort to ease human suffering. It is only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries that the prolongation of life has taken on new meaning due to the powers now available to physicians, through new drugs and high technology interventions. Whereas earlier physicians and patients could readily acknowledge that nothing further could be done, today that judgment is problematic.

Most often, aiding the dying took the form of not doing anything further to prolong life. Morally, this act of restraint was not difficult, because few options could have been considered. However, some physicians, rarely, would help patients die either by hastening death directly or by increasing pain control with the risk of hastening death, the so-called double effect. When directly hastening death, physicians either directly caused the death of the patient through euthansia, or supplied the means to the patient to bring about death with or without encouragement to use these means. The latter is physician-assisted suicide (PAS).

About a week after Maran Wolston was prescribed Copaxone, a drug for multiple sclerosis (MS), she got a phone call from a nurse at an organization called Shared Solutions. The organization was familiar to Wolston; when her neurologist had asked permission to share her health information with Shared Solutions, Wolston had agreed, assuming it was connected to her health insurance.

The nurse who called Wolston was checking in to see how the treatment was going. It was not going well. While Copaxone is not typically associated with some of the unpleasant side effects of other MS drugs, it does have at least one serious drawback: the drug must be injected every day. The injections can be brutally painful. “No matter where I injected the drug each day, the injection site swelled up into a huge welt and felt like a gigantic bee sting,” Wolston writes.

Patients living with chronic pain require appropriate access to opioid therapy along with improved access to pain care and additional therapeutic options. It's both medically reasonable and ethical to consider opioid therapy as a treatment option in the management of chronic, non-cancer pain for a subset of patients with severe pain that is unresponsive to other therapies (e.g., injections, other medications, integrative strategies), negatively impacts function or quality of life, and will likely outweigh the potential harms. This paper will examine opioid therapy in the setting of the opioid epidemic, why critics feel that the CDC guideline has resulted in harsh consequences for patients and their physicians, and the rationale for opioid therapy as a means of providing ethical and compassionate pain care.

One of the most challenging and rewarding roles for in-house hospital attorneys is serving as a member of their hospital’s Bioethics Committee (the “Committee”). As a member of the Committee, an attorney assists in developing institutional ethics policies and guidelines, and also participates in ethics consultations involving disputes about patient care. Institutions such as the Author’s employer, Texas Children’s Hospital, promote open and honest communications between members of a patient’s health care team and the patient’s parents and family; however, when communications break down, the Committee’s goal is to provide an objective forum where disputes can be discussed and hopefully resolved in a professional, ethical manner.

Stigma is a factor of diseases of craniofacial disfigurement, associated with negative health outcomes. Psychosocial interventions can improve the “illness” experience. The law can improve care by framing patients' rights, defining physicians' obligations to make psychological referrals, and fostering an activist orientation among patients.

The paper identifies common barriers and challenges to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and offers considerations for state and local public health departments to address barriers and retool infrastructure to increase access to PrEP to new users. Authors identify synergistic opportunities with federal agencies and funders to advance PrEP-related HIV prevention efforts, that prioritize strategies and investments to provide PrEP to people who could benefit from the intervention but are unaware of PrEP or struggle to access it. Barriers discussed and examined include financing strategies to reduce financial burden of PrEP medication, expanding PrEP access and outreach beyond clinical settings, and increasing the network and reach of the provider community to serve people we oppress through policy choices and discourses of racial and socioeconomic inferiority.

Since AIDS was first identified in 1981, its rate of spread among a primarily young and vibrant population has chilled the medical and lay communities. Today, the public response is sober and oriented toward the examination of specific policies that could lessen the impact of the disease. After six years' experience it is now feasible to propose a strategy for combatting AIDS. Consensus around the following policies should form the nucleus of the public health strategy to combat AIDS before the intervention of an effective vaccine or treatment.

Unprotected sexual intercourse and use of contaminated needles are intentional activities. Voluntary changes in behavior to avoid a high risk of transmission is currently the overriding public policy objective. The first line of defense in controlling AIDS, therefore, is to inform and educate individuals about high-risk behavior and about methods of altering behavior to protect against transmission of the infection.

Despite historic efforts to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in 2010, national health reform is threatened by multiple legal challenges grounded in constitutional law. Premier among these claims is the premise that PPACA’s “individual mandate” (requiring all individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014 or face civil penalties) is constitutionally infirm. Attorneys General in Virginia and Florida (joined by 25 other states) allege that Congress’ interstate commerce powers do not authorize federal imposition of the individual mandate because Congress lacks the power to regulate commercial “inactivity.” Stated simply, Congress cannot regulate individuals who choose not to obtain health insurance because they are not engaged in a commercial venture. Several courts initially considering this argument have rejected it, but two federal district courts in Virginia and Florida have concurred, leading to numerous appeals and the near promise of United States Supreme Court review.

Just over a year has elapsed since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Cruzan. In the year prior to and since the decision there have been a substantial number of articles in the medical literature that have discussed the possible impacts of the decision on medical care along with suggestions as to how to avoid the more onerous consequences. These analyses are constrained by the lack of any direct measurements, an activity that is itself complicated by other events such as the publicity surrounding episodes of assisted suicide and so-called mercy killing. In this paper we will limit our focus to how the decision in Cruzan is likely to affect the doctor-patient relationship, especially in the critical activities surrounding decision-making about the use of life sustaining treatments.

With the identification of HIV as the etiological agent responsible for AIDS in 1984, it became clear that an understanding of the dimensions of the epidemic would require more than a careful detailing of the incidence and prevalence of overt symptoms of AIDS. To enable public health authorities to target and evaluate preventative interventions and plan for the health care services that would be required in the future as the infected progressed to symptomatic conditions, knowledge of the incidence and prevalence of HIV infection was critically needed.

In recent years, a number of prominent scholars have touted the use of litigation as an effective tool for making public health policy. For example, Stephen Teret and Michael Jacobs have asserted that product liability claims against car makers have played a significant role in reducing automobile-related injuries, Peter Jacobson and Kenneth Warner have argued that litigation against cigarette manufacturers has advanced the cause of tobacco control, and Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig have suggested that lawsuits against the firearms industry can reduce gun violence. Critics have attacked this use of litigation as doing more harm than good to public health and as a misuse of the courts. This debate involves two distinct controversies: one over whether the public health benefits of litigation outweigh its costs and the other over the proper role of courts within our system of government.

Biobank-based research in Mexico is mostly governed by research and data protection laws. There is no direct mention of biobanks in either statutory or regulatory law besides a requirement that the Federal Ministry of Health and a Mexican institution devoted to scientific research approve the transfer of biological materials outside of Mexico for population genetics research purposes. Such requirements are the basis of Genomic Sovereignty in Mexico, but such requirements have not prevented international collaboration. In addition, Mexican law singles out genetic research in informed consent provisions, but it does not specify whether all biobank-based research is genetic research. In order to facilitate international collaboration on biobank-based research, Mexico should directly address biobanking in its laws, building on the research framework and data protection framework already in place.

Even though health care provider reporting of diseases to public health authorities is common, often there is under-reporting by providers, including for notifiable diseases; frequently, under-reporting occurs by wide margins. Two causal factors for this under-reporting by providers have been that: (1) disclosing data may violate their patients’ privacy, and (2) disclosed data may be used to evaluate their performance. A reluctance to disclose information due to privacy concerns exists despite the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule permitting disclosures of personal health information (PHI) for public health purposes without patient authorization. On the other hand, such patient privacy concerns are somewhat justified: there have been documented breaches of patient information from public health data custodians.

A common way to address this privacy issue is to de-identify patient data before it is disclosed to public health.

Calls to abolish race as a proxy for biology or genetics in clinical care have reached a fever pitch in the latter half of 2020, including articles in the New England Journal of Medicine, and urgent letters from prominent Senators.

The home setting presents particular problems in assessing a client/patient's ability to refuse suggested medical care. Home is familiar; it is associated with relaxation and not with the mobilization required to combar anxiety, uncertainty, illness and pain. In the home family members may be overly involved or controlling. Especially in the situation of elderly siblings with long combined histories, there may be shared peculiarities or even shared personaliry disorders which complicate an individual's choice of care. The home, because it is familiar, may maximize patient orientation but may also support denial of illness; the patient/client may reason “If I'm home, I'm really not ill.” In contrast, hospitals and long-term care facilities are intimidating and infantilizing institutions that tend to undercut personal resolve and challenge denial.

In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.

To the surprise of many and the dismay of some, the U.S. Supreme Court took it upon itself last term to proclaim a national compromise on the question of abortion. The Court's announced truce, an elaboration on Justice O’Connor's “undue burden” idea, is pragmatic in design but unlikely to prove stable in practice. The three justices who spoke for the Court disparaged Roe with reluctant praise, then upheld its outer shell on the ground that social expectations and the need to sustain the appearance of the rule of law made it impolitic to do otherwise. This awkward doctrinal invention seem unlikely to yield a lasting peace. However artful as political brokerage, it is unpersuasive as principled jurisprudence. Its explicitly political calculus invites skepticism about its authors’ commitment to principled method even as it purports to preserve public regard for judicial legitimacy. Moreover, there is an unexplained “disconnect” between the opinion's avowed preservation of Roc's “essential holding” and its abandonment of Roe's commitment to reproductive freedom as a compelling interest.

Ensuring that life-saving antimicrobials remain available as effective treatment options in the face of rapidly rising levels of antimicrobial resistance will require a massive and coordinated global effort. Setting a collective direction for progress is the first step towards aligning global efforts on AMR. This process would be greatly accelerated by adopting a unifying global target — a well-defined global target that unites all countries and sectors. The proposed pandemic instrument — with its focus on prevention, preparedness and response — represents an ideal opportunity to develop and adopt a unifying global target that catalyzes global action on AMR. We propose three key characteristics of a unifying global target for AMR that — if embedded within the pandemic preparedness instrument — could rally public support, funding, and political commitment commensurate with the scale of the AMR challenge.