Medical practice should evolve alongside medical ethics. As our understanding of the ethical implications of physician-patient interactions becomes more nuanced, physicians should integrate those lessons into practice. As early as the 1930s, epidemiological studies began to identify that the rates of medical procedures varied significantly along geographic and socioeconomic lines. Dr. J. Alison Glover recognized that tonsillectomy rates in school children in certain school districts in England and Wales were in some cases eight times the rates of children in other districts, with the only significant predictive factors being the current chief medical officer in the area and the socioeconomic well-being of the child's parents. Unfortunately, Dr. Glover's work revealed that the increase in tonsillectomies did not improve the health of adolescent patients and appeared to be performed “as a routine prophylactic ritual for no particular reason and with no particular result.”

Natural selection generated a natural sense of justice. This natural sense of justice created a set of natural rights; rights humans accorded to each other in virtue of being members of the same tribe. Sharing the responsibility for natural rights between all members of the same tribe allowed humans to take advantage of all opportunities for cooperation. Human rights are the present day political emanation of natural rights. Theoretically, human rights are accorded by all humans to all humans in virtue of being humans; however, the idea that the corresponding responsibility is now shared among all humans is not broadly accepted. The natural sense of justice creates an ambiguity: on the one hand humans consider the nation they belong to as the social system that should guarantee their human rights (and likewise they do not consider themselves as having responsibility for the human rights of inhabitants of other nations); on the other hand, as cooperation between nations intensifies, expectations of global mutual responsibility increase as well.

Armed with expanded federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research and new methods for deriving pluripotent stem cells, stem cell researchers in the U.S. are poised to proceed with unprecedented speed toward the development of new clinical therapies. Staring into the new dawn of regenerative medicine, many observers may assume that the only responsible route to the clinic, both scientifically and ethically, is through FDA-approved clinical trials processes. Conventional wisdom dictates that, like pharmaceutical drugs and the use of biological therapeutics, stem cell-based therapies will have to pass through a series of controlled studies — initially to assess safety and toxicity, then efficacy and comparative efficacy — before they can be justifiably administered to patients outside a clinical trials context.

Criminalization is a form of social marginalization that is little appreciated as a determinant of poor health. Criminalization can be understood in at least two ways — in the narrow sense as the imposition of criminal penalties for a certain behavior, and more broadly as the conferral of a criminalized status on all individuals in the population, whether proven guilty of a specific offense or not. Both criminal penalties and criminalized status threaten the mental and physical health of these populations in many ways. Incarceration, abandonment by families and communities, social disdain, physical abuse, discrimination, and relentless fear undermine their ability to enjoy their right to the highest attainable standard of health goods and services. Understanding the social determinants of health in these populations and formulating programs to address them have rarely been high priorities in national or international policy.

Melanie was 29-years-old, married, and hoping to start a family when she discovered a lump in her pelvis. She was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. But one of her biggest fears upon learning of her diagnosis was the possibility of loosing her ability to have children. When Melanie asked her oncologist and radiation oncologist about the risk cancer treatment posed to her fertility, they told her it was small, as only one ovary would be destroyed during the radiation. Deciding to ask for another opinion, she sought out a reproductive endocrinologist, who told her, contrary to what her oncologists had said, that women like her typically did have problems conceiving after radiation treatment on their pelvis. One of the hardest parts of dealing with her dual diagnosis, Melanie later recalled, was the unknown: “I didn't know if my treatment would definitely render me infertile.”

In response to the obesity epidemic, much discussion in the public health and child advocacy communities has centered on restricting food and beverage marketing practices directed at children. A common retort to appeals for government regulation is that such advertising and marketing constitutes protected commercial speech under the First Amendment. This perception has allowed the industry to function largely unregulated since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)'s foray into the topic, termed KidVid, was terminated by an act of Congress in 1981. The FTC has since focused on self-regulation as a potential solution to such concerns. However, this method of control has proven ineffective to protect children, and has led to growing recognition that federal regulation may be necessary.

Since KidVid, the evidence has only mounted that children are uniquely vulnerable to the effects of advertising. Over the same time period, the exposition of commercial speech jurisprudence has plateaued, as the Supreme Court has not decided a pure commercial speech case since 2002.

Global health is a concept which in recent years has evoked a lot of interest from both academics, politicians, celebrities, and the media. The term “global health” implies a globally shared responsibility to provide health as a public good through an expansive number of initiatives. This emerging era of consciousness about our international interdependence, regardless of a problem’s geographic location or type of disease, may be a good moment for exploring the strengths and weaknesses of an international law approach to global health challenges: a global health convention.

The most prominent global health initiatives are the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the 2005 Paris Declaration Process on Aid Effectiveness on the need for alignment and coordination (PDP), and the 2008 Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (AHLF). These instruments have yet to prove their value, and the funds annually disbursed, approximately $25 billion in 2009, could have better effect if the negotiated principles from the PDP and the AHLF were followed.

Innovative therapy is the name we give to novel medical interventions, radically different from the standard of care, provided in order to benefit a patient, rather than to acquire new knowledge. They are paradigmshifting, not incremental, responses to serious patient problems that standard medical care inadequately addresses. Innovative therapies are often devised by clinicians, not basic science researchers; they do not follow the linear model of basic research, to translation, to clinical research, to application. Instead, they come from thinking backwards from the patient’s circumstances, and forward from deep knowledge of how the body functions, to challenge the limits of current mechanisms for effecting cures.

Policy arguments in support of stem cell research often use economic benefit as a key rationale for permissive policies and increased government funding. Economic growth, job creation, improved productivity, and a reduction in the burden of disease are all worthy goals and, as such, can be used as powerful rhetorical tools in efforts to sway voters, politicians, and funding agencies. However, declarations of economic and commercial benefit — which can be found in policy reports, the scientific literature, public funding policies, and the popular press — have arguably created a great deal of expectation. Can stem cell research deliver on the economic promise? And what are the implications of this economic ethos for the researchers who must work under its shadow?

With improved diagnostic capability and accuracy, the fields of medicine, neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology have benefitted remarkably from the dramatic advancements in neuroimaging technology. Not only can surface and subsurface structures of the brain be mapped with incredible anatomical detail (with magnetic resonance imaging), now neural activity can be imaged across time as the brain responds to different stimuli (with functional magnetic resonance imaging). These sophisticated techniques have been a vital element in the recent increase in neuroimaging-based research. This increase, while producing new diagnostic techniques and improved treatment mechanisms for neurological disease, has also led to a new dilemma for human subjects researchers: how should incidental findings be managed? An incidental finding (IF) is a finding concerning an individual research participant that has potential health or reproductive importance and is discovered in the course of conducting research but is beyond the aims of this study.

Consent forms given to potential subjects in research protocols typically contain a sentence like this: “You have a right to withdraw from this study at any time without penalty.” If you have ever served on an institutional review board (IRB) or a research ethics committee, you have no doubt read such a sentence often. Moreover, codes of ethics governing medical research endorse such a right. For example, paragraph 24 of the Declaration of Helsinki says, “The subject should be informed of the right… to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal.” Similarly, section C of the Belmont Report says that subjects must be informed that they have the right “to withdraw at any time from the research.” And in section 46.116 of the Common Rule (issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services), it says that one of the elements of informed consent must include a statement that “the subject may discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefit to which the subject is otherwise entitled.”

In coming decades, enhanced global health governance will be crucial to achieving international health and development objectives in the face of a number of challenges; this article focuses on one of them. Climate change, which is now widely recognized as the defining challenge of the 21st century, will make the work of ensuring the conditions in which people can be healthy more difficult in a myriad of ways. Scientists from both the health and climate communities have been highlighting the significant interaction between climate and health for decades and have made significant strides in integrating health and environmental research. Those of us in the law and policy community have been a bit slow to catch up, and have only just begun to call for better integration of our responses to health and environmental concerns. Environmental health specialists at the World Health Organization have recently pointed to a mandate for better integration of health and environmental concerns within the United Nations system. The Millennium Development Goals interweave health, environmental, and development concerns.

While society debates whether and how to use public funds to support work on human embryonic stem cells (hESCs), many scientific groups and businesses debate a different question — the extent to which patents that cover such stem cells should be permitted to limit or to tax their research. The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), a non-profit foundation that manages intellectual property generated by researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, owns three patents that have been at the heart of the latter controversy. The story of WARF’s patents and the controversy they have fostered highlights not only continuing tensions between proprietary and nonproprietary approaches to developing science and technology, but also an at least partly reassuring capacity of public and private sectors to deal with those tensions in a way that can render them substantially manageable, and frequently more manageable as a technology matures.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) — collaborative endeavors between health care clinicians and lawyers to more effectively address issues impacting health care — have proliferated over the past decade. The goal of this interdisciplinary approach is to improve the health outcomes and quality of life of patients and families, recognizing the many non-medical influences on health care and thus the value of an interdisciplinary team to enhance health. There are currently over 180 MLPs at over 200 hospitals and health centers in the United States, with increasing federal interest and potential legislative support of this model.

This article examines the unique, interrelated, and often similar (although at times conflicting) ethical issues that confront the clinical and legal partners involved in MLPs. We contend that the ethical precepts of the clinical and legal professions should be seen as opportunities, not barriers, to further the interdisciplinary nature of MLPs.

Medical liability remains a major concern among U.S. physicians, and according to the American Medical Association (AMA) the United States is currently experiencing its third fullblown medical liability crisis with many physicians limiting their practices as a result of rising malpractice costs. The AMA, many in the medical community, and several prominent politicians including former president George W. Bush have called for medical liability reform including caps on non-economic damages. Some researchers argue that the medical liability crisis has been overdrawn. Several studies have shown that the vast majority of patients injured through medical malpractice do not sue, that the insurance cycle is likely major contributor to rising malpractice insurance premiums, and that defensive medicine likely plays a minor role in rising health care costs. Further, evidence shows that malpractice damage caps may lead to a crossover effect where juries increase the amount of economic damages they award to offset limitations in non-economic damages available.

It is arguable that the delivery of global health has reached an impasse. This is evident not only in unresolved debates that are raging about where to allocate health aid or how to sustain and expand funding for AIDS treatment, but also in challenges facing national health systems that are incapable of purely domestic resolution. But there is some irony and much opportunity in this situation. Not only have the last 20 years seen an unprecedented growth in funding for health, mainly through funding for AIDS, but there has also been a range of initiatives and ideas that have generated better knowledge not only of the determinants of health, but also of how to attain it. Scientists, public health experts, and activists have created a store of intellectual knowledge, technology, and ideas, which, if properly and fairly deployed, might provide the opportunity to re-launch tangible progress towards the progressive realization of the right to health on a global scale.

Recently, the discussion regarding the physicians’ “Right of Conscience” (ROC) has been on the rise. This issue is often confined to the “reproductive health” arena (abortions, birth control, morning-after pills, fertility treatments, etc.) within the political context. The recent dispute of the Bush-Obama administrations regarding the legal protections of health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs is an example of the political aspects of this dispute. The involvement of the political system (motivated by specific interests and values) automatically shifts the discussion regarding physicians’ ROC into the narrow area of “reproductive health laws.” Indeed, the immediate association that comes to mind when thinking about the practical implications of this dispute is related to the reproductive health arena. This is partly because of the historical context of the first “conscience clauses,” initially enacted by Congress and state legislatures in the mid-1970s; in fact, most of these clauses provided specific exemptions for abortion and few exempted sterilization as well.

Sexual assault cases are challenging for both the patient and provider, particularly given the emotional and logistic overlays in the majority of these cases. In this article we offer sexual assault programs information and areas for consideration when developing a policy addressing sexual assault examinations on patients who are either incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent to examination. This information is based on our experience in creating and implementing such a policy for our program. We also offer the written policy and associated consent form that we designed (see Figures 1 and 2).

The protocol manual for sexual assault medical forensic examinations authored by the Department of Justice actually recommends that each and every sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program have “internal policies based on applicable jurisdictional statutes governing consent for treatment of vulnerable adult patients. In cases of adolescents, the jurisdictional statutes governing consent and access to the exam should be followed.“

Thirty years ago when I, an attorney, took a tenure-track faculty position at an innovative, newly opened medical school, I was an oddity — truly, a stranger in a strange land. Today it is not uncommon for American medical schools to employ an attorney as a tenured or tenure-track member of its faculty. Over these last three decades, the educational roles and responsibilities of health law faculty who teach in law schools have become increasingly well defined, with numerous health law courses and textbooks now generally accepted as part of the typical law school curriculum. However, the roles and responsibilities of attorney faculty members who teach in medical schools remain less clearly defined and likely are more individualized to the particular medical schools in which they teach. This essay explores some of the challenges and the opportunities which are given to attorney faculty members who teach in medical schools.

In 1998, researchers established the first human embryonic stem cell line. Their scientific triumph triggered an ethics and policy argument that persists today. Bioethicists, religious leaders, government officials, patient advocates, and scientists continue to debate whether this research poses a promise, a threat, or a mixed ethical picture for society.

Scientists are understandably excited about the knowledge that could come from studying human embryonic stem cells. Most of them believe these cells offer a precious opportunity to learn more about why diseases develop and how they might be prevented or attacked. In their quest to gain support for stem cell research, scientists and others have claimed that the research could generate cures and treatment for everything from heart disease to cancer.