On March 31,1981, the New York Gurt of Appeals handed down its decision in the consolidated cases of Brother Joseph Fox and John Storar. The Eichner case was generally well known, having excited considerable national publicity both before and after the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York handed down its opinion on March 17,1980. The Storar case,) conversely, was not as well known and was consolidated with the Eichner case, in the words of the Court of Appeals, because future similar cases would arise. As will be discussed more fully in this article, the consolidation of these two markedly dissimilar cases not only has created confusion, but also has served to obscure the position taken by the court of Appeals relative to other similar cases both in New York and other jurisdictions.

Brother Joseph Fox was an 83 year old member of a Catholic religious order who enjoyed good health until he suffered cardiac arrest during the performance of a hernia operation. As a result of the cardiac arrest, he became anoxic, suffered permanent brain damage, and became respirator-dependent.

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.

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.

Based on hierarchical classification and logistic regression of early US and French COVID-19 clinical trials we show that despite the registration of a large number of trials, only a minority had characteristics usually associated with providing robust and relevant evidence.

The federal system for allocating donated livers in the United States is often criticized for allowing geographic disparities in access to livers. Critics argue that such disparities are unfair on the grounds that where one lives is morally arbitrary and so should not influence one's access to donated livers. They argue instead that livers should be allocated in accordance with the equal opportunity principle, according to which US residents who are equally sick should have the same opportunity to receive a liver, regardless of where they live. In this paper, we examine a central premise of the argument for the equal opportunity principle, namely, that geographic location is a morally arbitrary basis for allocating livers. We raise some serious doubts regarding the truth of this premise, arguing that under certain conditions, factors closely associated with geographic location are relevant to the allocation of livers, and so that candidates' geographic location is sometimes a morally non-arbitrary basis for allocating livers. Geographic location is morally non-arbitrary, we suggest, since by taking it into account, the UNOS may better fulfill its central goals of facilitating the effective and efficient placement of organs for transplantation and increasing organ donation.

This commentary responds to and problematizes Kimmel and Rowe's approach in “A Behavioral Addiction Model of Revenge, Violence, and Gun Abuse.” By advancing an addiction model of retaliatory violence, Kimmel and Rowe medicalize behavior that is better understood as a social problem rooted in structural inequality. Reframing violence in terms of individual pathology abstracts it from social context and risks obscuring the need for structural change. For poor urban communities of color, who are disproportionately impacted by gun violence, medicalizing violent behavior may fuel further marginalization and oppression.

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.

If federal health reforms continue to rely on employer-sponsored health care coverage, ERISA preemption reform should be part of the next steps. State-level reform has acquired greater urgency, while the justifications for preempting that source of reform has eroded. This article recommends a statutory waiver for ERISA preemption as a feasible way to adapt to these circumstances. It offers proposed statutory text for reformers inclined to pursue ERISA reform as health reform.

Here, we analyze the public health implications of recent legal developments — including privacy legislation, intergovernmental data exchange, and artificial intelligence governance — with a view toward the future of public health informatics and the potential of diverse data to inform public health actions and drive population health outcomes.

This article examines the unique disadvantages experienced by Black people and other people of color with substance use disorder in health care, and argues that an intersectional approach to enforcing disability rights laws offer an opportunity to ameliorate some of the harms of oppression to this population.