Controversy swept the U.K. in January of 2000 over public disclosure of the fact that a Scottish surgeon named Robert Smith had amputated the limbs of two able-bodied individuals who reportedly suffered from a condition known as apotemnophilia. The patients, both of whom had sought and consented to the surgery, claimed they had desperately desired for years to live as amputees and had been unable, despite considerable efforts, to reconcile themselves psychologically to living with the bodies with which they were born. Both surgeries were successful, and both patients, who had undergone psychiatric evaluation prior to the amputations, subsequently reported having no regrets. In the wake of a wave of sensationalistic stories in the media, the hospital at which the surgeries had been performed, the Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary, banned any future surgeries of the kind. Outraged local politicians promptly announced their intention to pass laws banning the procedure outright. One member of Scottish Parliament declared the surgery obscene and asserted that the whole thing is repugnant and legislation needs to be brought in now to outlaw this.

Medicine and its allied health sciences have for too long been peripherally involved in work on human rights. Fifty years ago, the door to greater involvement was opened by Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underlined social and economic rights: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

To help eliminate perinatal HIV transmission, the US Department of Health and Human Services recommends against breastfeeding for women living with HIV, regardless of viral load or combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) status. However, cART radically improves HIV prognosis and virtually eliminates perinatal transmission, and breastfeeding's health benefits are well-established. In this setting, pregnancy is increasing among American women with HIV, and a harm reduction approach to those who breastfeed despite extensive counseling is suggested. We assess the evidence and ethical justification for current policy, with attention to pertinent racial and health disparities. We first review perinatal transmission and breastfeeding data relevant to US infants. We compare hypothetical risk of HIV transmission from breastmilk to increased mortality from sudden infant death syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis and sepsis from avoiding breastfeeding, finding that benefits may outweigh risks if mothers maintain undetectable viral load on cART. We then review maternal health considerations. We conclude that avoidance of breastfeeding by women living with HIV may not maximize health outcomes and discuss our recommendation for revising national guidelines in light of autonomy, harm reduction and health inequities.

Too many patients are injured in the course of care. Clinicians may mistakenly cause new harm to a patient or fail to take established steps to improve the presenting condition. Medical institutions within which they work may lack mechanisms to reduce errors or prevent them from harming patients. Many, perhaps even most, injuries are preventable, probably numbering in the hundreds of thousands a year for hospital care alone. Long ignored by medical practitioners and health-care payers and little appreciated by the public, the problem of medical injury is finally receiving high-level policy attention. Much credit goes to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for its landmark report of November 1999, which marshaled the evidence about medical injuries and highlighted new approaches to systematic improvement of safety within systems of care.

Authority is an uneasy, political notion. Heard with modern ears, it calls forth images of oppression and power. In institutional settings, authority is everywhere present, and its use poses problems for the exercise both of individual autonomy and of responsibility. In medical ethics, the exercise of authority (along with power) has been located on the side of the physician or the health care institution, and it has usually been opposed by appeal to patient autonomy and rights. So, it is not surprising, though still ironic, that ethics consultation, which develops from this patient rights-dominated ethic, should itself bring forth questions of authority. Nonetheless, it does.

Insofar as authority has been discussed in ethics consultations, it has been understandably approached from the broad perspective of legitimation and power, which are common themes in social and political treatments of authority. These treatments have dominated twentieth-century discussions of authority, which primarily view authority as legitimate power.

In the United States’ quite volatile public debates over the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, much has been made of the risk of abuse. Indeed, it was probably fears of abuse that contributed more than any other single factor to the 1991 defeat of the United States’ first ballot test of legalizing euthanasia, the state of Washington's Initiative 119—despite prior state and national polls suggesting the measure would pass. Opponents of Initiative 119, which would have legalized physician-performed euthanasia or physician-provided aid in suicide when voluntarily requested by competent terminally ill patients with less than six months to live, variously claimed that the legislation would encourage greedy family members to pressure patients into choosing death, that unscrupulous physicians would kill patients who became unattractive to treat, that cost-cutting pressures from hospitals, insurers, and other institutions would force patients into death, and that race-, age-, and handicap-prejudice would take an especial toll among vulnerable groups.

“Medical futility” may be provisionally defined as a medical conclusion that a therapy is of no value to a patient and should not be prescribed. The current debate about medical futility is one of the most important and contentious in medical ethics. Proponents believe that allowing physicians to determine and withhold futile therapies can he done without disturbing the current paradigm of medical ethics which respects patient autonomy with regard to informed consent and the right to refuse treatment. Others conclude that medical futility is simply an unacceptable form of medical paternalism. Some adopt a middle position that doctors can predict medical futility; they believe that attempting this does not necessarily justify imposing decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy on patients.

Regardless of its policy outcome, this important debate is leading to a reexamination of the nature of a patient's entitlement to health care and of the ends of medicine. It has two aspects. A definitional debate examines rhe concept of medical futility and its derived clinical criteria.

Biobank data and samples frequently endure beyond the life of the individual who provided the sample; this is particularly true for biorepositories that archive data and samples from cancer patients. Those data and samples may be used for research, including after the death of the individual. When the research produces genetic research results (a term used here to include incidental findings and individual research results) that have potential health or reproductive importance for the individual who provided the sample, the results may also have importance for blood relatives. This raises the question of whether the research results should be shared with relatives, at their request or at the initiative of the researchers. The issues are complex even when the research participant is alive, but are particularly challenging after the death of the individual whose data and sample are archived, as the individual may not have been asked their preferences about sharing with family, including after death. Even if the individual’s preferences on sharing have been elicited, investigators and biobank directors may be concerned about withholding genetic research results from relatives that are of potential health significance.

The Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO) affirms that “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights lays the foundations for the international framework for the right to health. This human right is now codified in numerous national constitutions, as well as legally binding international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Although medical care and access to medicines are vital features of the right to health, almost two billion people lack access to essential medicines, leading to immense avoidable suffering. Improving access to essential medicines could save 10 million lives each year, four million of them in Africa and South-East Asia alone. Gross inequity is a shocking feature of the world pharmaceutical situation.

Increasingly, the world seems to shrink due to our ever-expanding technological and communication capacities. Correspondingly, our awareness of other cultures increases. This is especially true in the field of bioethics because the technological progress of medicine throughout the world is causing dramatic and challenging intersections with traditionally held values. Think of the use of pregnancy monitoring technologies like ultrasound to abort fetuses of the “wrong” sex in India (where a female's dowry can be a tremendous burden to the family), the sale of human organs in and between countries, or the disjunction between the haves and the have-nots in South America when it comes to bone marrow transplants, while thousands of other children die for want of fundamental goods and services like clean water, basic inoculations, and food itself.

In 1989, Helga Wanglie, 86 years old, broke her hip. This began a medical downhill course that a year later caused her health care providers to conclude that she would not benefit from continued medical treatment. It would be futile, and therefore, should not be provided. Her husband (the surrogate decision maker) disagreed, and the conflict eventually led to a lawsuit. The Wanglie case touched off an extended debate in the medical and bioethical literature about medical futility: what it means and how useful the concept is in making ethical decisions about starting or stopping treatment.

In confronting the insalubrious ramifications of globalization, human rights scholars and activists have argued for greater national and international responsibility pursuant to the human right to health. Codified seminally in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the right to health proclaims that states bear an obligation to realize the “highest attainable standard” of health for all. However, in pressing for the highest attainable standard for each individual, the right to health has been ineffective in compelling states to address burgeoning inequalities in underlying determinants of health, focusing on individual medical treatments at the expense of public health systems. This article contends that the paradigm of individual health, focused on a right to individual medical care, is incapable of responding to health inequities in a globalized world and thereby hampers efforts to operationalize health rights through public health systems. While the right to health has evolved in international discourse over time, this evolution of the individual right to health cannot address the harmful societal ramifications of economic globalization. Rather than relying solely upon an individual right to medical care, envisioning a collective right to public health – a right applied at the societal level to address underlying determinants of health – would alleviate many of the injurious health inequities of globalization.

In the research ethics literature, there is strong disagreement about the ethical acceptability of placebo-controlled trials, particularly when a tested therapy aims to alleviate a condition for which standard treatment exists. Recently, this disagreement has given rise to debate over the moral appropriateness of the principle of clinical equipoise for medical research. Underlying these debates are two fundamentally different visions of the moral obligations that investigators owe their subjects.

Some commentators and ethics documents claim that physicians, whether acting as care givers or researchers, have the same duty of beneficence towards their patients and subjects: namely, that they must provide optimal medical care. In discussing placebo surgery in research on refractory Parkinson's disease, Peter Clark succinctly states this view: “The researcher has an ethical responsibility to act in the best interest of subjects.”

The devastating impact of the national opioid epidemic has given rise to hundreds of lawsuits. This article details the extremely broad range of legal claims, compares the opioid cases to other public health litigation efforts, including tobacco, and describes the special mechanism — a multidistrict litigation — through which more than 700 opioid-related cases have been consolidated thus far, with settlement almost certain to follow.

The increasing life expectancy and increasing proportion of the population over the age of 65 in most developing countries are both unprecedented demographic phenomena. In the United States, life expectancy has increased more in the last century than in all previous recorded history. Even in the last 20 years, there have continued to he unexpected and largely unexplainable declines in mortality rates leading to increasing numbers of people living beyond even the ages of 85, 90 or 100. It is not surprising, then, that there is a great interest in studies of aging among researchers in social science and policy studies. Further, since aging is generally associated with an increased risk of medical illness and declining function, research has been stimulated in many different health-related areas, such as clinical disease, basic molecular causes of aging, and health services research.

Cultural values influence how people understand illness and dying, and impact their responses to diagnosis and treatment, yet end-of-life care is rooted in white, middle class values. Faith, hope, and belief in God’s healing power are central to most African Americans, yet life-preserving care is considered “aggressive” by the healthcare system, and families are pressured to cease it.

Congress has consistently failed to solve some serious problems with the cost, effectiveness, and safety of pharmaceuticals. In part, this failure results from the pharmaceutical industry convincing legislators to define policy problems in ways that protect industry profits. By targeting campaign contributions to influential legislators and by providing them with selective information, the industry manages to displace the public’s voice in developing pharmaceutical policy.

It is generally recognized that China, while attempting to develop modern scientific medicine in carrying out its national policy for modernization, has also made significant efforts to integrate traditional Chinese medicine into its health care system. For instance, the World Health Organization's first global strategy on traditional and alternative medicine (released in May 2002) lists China as one of only four of its member states to have attained an integrative health care system. However, medical integration can take many different forms and involve quite different health care standards. A health care standard is a set of mechanisms by which distinct diagnostic and therapeutic practices and products are validated or accredited for use in health care delivery. Traditional Chinese medicine and modern scientific medicine adopt different sets of such mechanisms and thereby engage different health care standards. Accordingly, in appraising the Chinese integrative health care system, it is important to investigate which health care standard has been appealed to.

This is the God Squad. It is faceless, impersonal, unmoved by tragedy, almost terrorist in aspect. The photo appeared in LIFE magazine on November 9, 1962, and it depicted the Admissions and Policy Committee of the Seattle Artificial Kidney Center. The Committee had been established in 1962 to select those few persons who would be admitted to the new and tiny dialysis unit that was created by Dr. Belding Scribner, inventor of the arteriovenous shunt. It consisted of seven anonymous members – a minister, a lawyer, a businessman, a homemaker, a labor leader, and two physicians. Each month they received a pile of charts about persons with end-stage renal disease. A prior medical evaluation had rated them all medically suitable for dialysis. The Committee’s task was to select one or two out of a dozen or so to take the available spots. The others were left to die. After several years of this agonizing work, the amendments to the Social Security Act provided financial support for renal dialysis and transplant, allowing the Admission Committee some peace of mind.

Enhancing research and development and ensuring equitable pricing and access to cutting-edge treatments are both vital to a biopharmaceutical innovation system that works in the public interest. However, despite delivering numerous therapeutic advances, the existing system suffers from major problems: a lack of directionality to meet key needs, inefficient collaboration, high prices that fail to reflect the public contribution, and an overly-financialized business model.