Medical records contain important clues about the history of medicine. These documents, which ostensibly describe the course of a patient's illness, are “unique constructions that allow us to observe the social and technical structure of contemporary healing.” As such, the 21st-century hospital medical record reflects the many components of inpatient care: medical interventions, billing, legal documentation, research, and education. It is comprised of a wide array of elements: professionals' notes; vital signs and other descriptive information; laboratory data and test results; demographic information; orders, charges, diagnostic and treatment codes; and other utilization data. It is well understood that many people share and need this information. Current controversies over records involve not control, but computerization, security, and accessibility. Although health professionals offer input, decisions about hospital medical records have been considered largely an administrative responsibility.

Two narratives have emerged to describe recent health care reforms in the United States of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). One narrative speaks of revolution, that the adoptions of the Affordable Care Act 2010 (ACA) in the US, and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) in the UK, have resulted in fundamental, large-scale philosophical, political and legal change in the jurisdictions’ respective health care systems. The other narrative evokes evolution, identifying each new legislative scheme as a natural development of existing governance structures. Policymakers in both the US and UK face the problem of a health care system which, as traditionally envisaged, cannot offer universal access to health care at a reasonable, or politically acceptable, price

Improving the health and life of individuals living in poverty requires new models and new approaches, moving healthcare away from today's medical mindset of acute care toward a conception of healthcare as value-based, which necessarily means connecting disparate impacts with the healthcare services that are delivered.

The European Commission’s proposal to address antimicrobial resistance using transferable exclusivity vouchers (TEVs) is fundamentally flawed. European policymakers and regulators should consider alternatives, such as better funding for basic and clinical research, use of advance market commitments funded by a pay-or-play tax, or enacting an EU Fund for Antibiotic Development.

Political debate regarding trans youth’s access to gender-affirming care (GAC) has pushed many to advocate for GAC by pointing to tragic, pathological outcomes of non-treatment, namely suicide. However, these pathologized arguments are a harmful ethical “shortcut” which should be replaced by a meaningful engagement with the ethics of providing GAC to youth.

This paper discusses the obligation of acute care hospitals and emergency services to treat patients. Since care rendered in these settings is, of necessity, provided by health care professionals, not buildings or programs, the obligation may be twofold. First, are there obligations for hospitals and emergency services to offer treatment? Second, do health care professionals practicing in these settings have an independent obligation to treat? How has the Supreme Court decision in Cruzan affected these obligations?

The tradition in this country has been that private hospitals had no obligation to treat patients, as opposed to public hospitals which were frequently set up for the very purpose of treating patients who had no other access to care. Over the years, statutes and case law have limited the rights of private hospitals and physicians to refuse to treat patients.