It is inevitable that some inmates in large state prison systems will suffer from terminal conditions and die while incarcerated. But how those inmates experience that event is primarily controlled by correctional policies and by the prison medical and correctional staff assigned to their care. Compassion for inmates who are dying cannot be legislated or mandated, but humane and compassionate care for the dying can be facilitated or thwarted by legislative and correctional policies, and by the manner in which correctional personnel interpret those policies.

Death in New York State prisons is a frequent event, occurring at a rate substantially higher than that in most other states. With a prison population that has risen to 70,000 inmates and with the nation’s highest rate of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, more than 2,817 inmates died in New York prisons during the period 1990-1998. In April 1992, in the face of an ever-increasing death rate in its prisons, the New York State legislature passed the Medical Parole Law, a measure designed to permit dying inmates to be released on parole prior to their normal release eligibility date.

Why do some physicians continue to treat patients who are clearly dying or persistently unconscious, while others consider medical intervention to be futile past a certain point? No doubt, medical decisions vary in part because clinical information is often ambiguous in individual cases and because it may support more than one reasonable interpretation of a patient's chances for survival or improvement if a particular treatment is administered. Also, cases vary considerably to the extent that a patient's or a family member's preferences for treatment are communicated, understood, and implemented. But, beyond these contingencies, patients at the end of life may receive more, less, or different treatment because physicians themselves are social actors, individuals who bring to bear on their clinical decisions a variety of personal attitudes, values, concerns, and interests. Legal defensiveness, religious vitalism, authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, and other traits may influence physicians’ behavior, but each may be concealed under the rubric of what is “medically indicated” or “medically appropriate.”

“I think there’s a big strong belief in [...] the community … and maybe it’s in the world at large that somehow the doctors are more concerned about harvesting the organs than what’s best for the patient.”1 In the past 45 years, organ and tissue recovery and transplantation have moved from the occasional and experimental to a standard of care for end-stage organ failure; receiving an organ transplant is for many the only opportunity for increased quantity and/or quality of life. The increasing prevalence of diseases such as viral hepatitis, diabetes, and hypertension has significantly increased the incidence of end-organ failure. Additionally, surgical advances have permitted less stringent qualification criteria, so that people of advanced age or patients who may be in a physiologically fragile state are now eligible to be organ recipients. These changes have created a significant demand for organs.

Most proposals for new international agreements aim to address important global challenges. If the goal is to solve problems, then the value of these agreements depends on their ability to influence the world — to shape norms, constrain behavior, facilitate cooperation, and mobilize action. A recent review of empirical studies has suggested that many international agreements fail to achieve their aspirations. The review indicates that the form in which states make commitments to each other — through an international legal agreement or through other means — may not be as important as commonly thought. It is the content of the commitments and how these are supported by mechanisms to encourage implementation that matter the most. When developing proposals for new international agreements, like the one that has recently been proposed to address antibiotic resistance (ABR), attention to implementation mechanisms should therefore be equal to if not greater than the attention paid to its form.

Genetic testing for cancer susceptibility is an application of biotechnology that has the potential both to improve the psychosocial and physical wellbeing of the population and to cause significant psychosocia1 and physical harms. In spite of the uncertain value of genetic testing, it has captured the interest of biotechnology companies, researchers, health care providers, and the public. As more tests become feasible, pressure may increase to make the tests available and reimbursable. Both the benefits and harms of these tests lie not as much in the tests themselves, as in their power to predict or alter the future. The value of the tests does not derive from the information per se, but from the ability to communicate effectively the information to patients and providers, and the behavioral responses of patients, providers, and others to this information.

Moral status is the moral value that something has in its own right, independently of the interests or concerns of others. Research using human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) implicates issues about moral status because the current method of extracting hESCs involves the destruction of a human embryo, the moral status of which is contested. Moral status issues can also arise, however, when hESCs are transplanted into embryonic or fetal animals, thereby creating human/ nonhuman stem cell chimeras (“chimeras” for short). In particular, one concern about chimera research is that it could confer upon an animal the moral status of a normal human adult, but then impermissibly fail to accord the animal the protections it merits in virtue of its enhanced status. Understanding the public policy implications of this ethical conclusion is complicated by the fact that certain views about the moral status of the embryo cannot legitimately be used to justify public policy decisions. Arguments like those employed in the abortion debate for the conclusion that abortion should be legally permissible even if abortion is not morally permissible also support, to a more limited degree, a liberal policy on hESC research involving the creation of chimeras.

Many pediatric research regulations, including those of the United States, the Council for International Organizations of Medical Science (CIOMS), and South Africa, offer similar rules for review board approval of higher hazard studies holding out no therapeutic or direct benefit to children with disorders or conditions (See Table 1). Authorization requires gaining parental permissions and the children’s assent, if that is possible, and showing that these studies are intended to gain vitally important and generalizable information about children’s conditions; it also requires limiting the risks of harm to no more than a “minor increase over minimal risk” and showing the study is commensurable with the children’s experiences. For convenience, these investigations will be called “no benefit, higher hazard” studies.

Despite the existence of these policies for decades, studies show that review boards’ judgments vary about what “no benefit, higher hazard” studies should be approved.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) reporting on the quality of health care in America recommends six aims for achieving the health care system we could have. Together with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Triple Aim initiative, a framework has emerged to challenge providers, educators, and policymakers to remake the health care system according to specific objectives: to provide care that is safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable to more people at a price we can afford. Complicating this mission of better prevention and better care at a lower cost is a daunting demographic: January of 2011 marked the month and year that the first of the baby boomers turned 65. The U.S. Census Bureau in May 2010 projected the number of Americans of this age and over to reach 88 million by 2050, more than double the current figure of 40.2 million. Parekh and Barton forecast in stark detail what it will be like to address these burgeoning numbers of older Americans with comorbidities, including the fact that over 20% of the population currently experiences at least two chronic medical conditions.

The cost of health care at the end of life accounts for a high proportion of total health care costs in the United States. The percentage of Medicare payments attributable to patients in their last year of life was 28.3% in 1978 and has remained substantially the same at 25.1% in 2006. This indicates how little progress has been made in containing these costs, though doing so will be important to promote a financially sustainable health care system. These expenditures also highlight the prospect that efforts to reduce health care costs overall are likely to disproportionately affect the care patients receive at the end of life.

Lawyers (and others) tend to look to the law to resolve disputes and to create certainty about the rights and responsibilities of parties to relationships. There is a particularly acute need for certainty in the context of global trade in surrogacy services, both because of the number of parties who may be involved in creating familial relationships and because of the vulnerabilities created as a result of surrogacy arrangements. Participants in the Global Health Challenges conference (on which this special issue is based) were invited to consider to what extent law is implicated in global health challenges — both in terms of how law might help to resolve the challenges, and (as is particularly of interest in international surrogacy), how law might contribute to or create these challenges.

Major segments of the news media, as well as many scientific journals, have produced innumerable articles and stories that polarize issues about proper protections for animals involved in research. The prevailing exposition of the issues is the following: On the one hand, animal lovers make emotional appeals to the public's attachment to animals and use clever tactics to increase the vulnerability of universities and institutions of research. On the other hand, arrogant scientists refuse to respond to public controversy, have an inherent conflict of interest in reviewing research involving animals, and are out to advance their careers and interests, callously using animals as means to that end. As a result, journalists warn NIH officials that they “can expect continuing criticism from two disparate and opposing groups—animal welfare activists, who consider NIH the fox guarding the chickens … and scientists and administrators from the research community, who regard tighter restrictions as unnecessarily burdensome.”

Involuntary commitment links the healthcare, public health, and legislative systems to act as a “carceral health-service.” While masquerading as more humane and medicalized, such coercive modalities nevertheless further reinforce the systems, structures, practices, and policies of structural oppression and white supremacy. We argue that due to involuntary commitment’s inextricable connection to the carceral system, and a longer history of violent social control, this legal framework cannot and must not be held out as a viable alternative to the criminal legal system responses to behavioral and mental health challenges. Instead, this article proposes true alternatives to incarceration that are centered on liberation that seeks to shrink the carceral system’s grasp on individuals’ and communities’ lives. In this, we draw inspiration from street-level praxis and action theory emanating from grassroots organizations and community organizers across the country under a Public Health Abolition framework.

International guidelines regarding ethics, and in particular the ethics of clinical research, are problematic on two broad levels. First, by asserting their universality, “international” guidelines obscure real and legitimate crosscultural differences in ethical expectations. International guidelines seek to make homogeneous something which is not necessarily so. Second, existing guidelines are ambiguous about their objectives and purposes. On the one hand, guidelines are structured as a set of goals, largely aspirational in language and content. But on the other hand, such guidelines also suggest a normative function, providing a set of standards by which to judge and, if appropriate, sanction investigators’ conduct.

These criticisms are not intended to argue that international guidelines are useless. Nor are they intended to question the good faith under which such guidelines are developed. Rather, we wish to suggest that the role of present international guidelines is somewhat more limited than is ordinarily appreciated.

The patient in a persistent vegetative state (hereafter, the PVS patient) has played a central role in recent American bioethical discussions and in recent litigation involving bioethical issues. From Quinlan’ to Cruzan and Wanglie, some of the most important cases involving ethical issues at the end of life have involved PVS patients. Major American medical groups such as the AMA and the American Academy of Neurology have adopted important policy statements on the care of such patients, statements that have been followed by at least one European group.

I have always found this activity a bit of a mystery. There is, after all, a relatively clear consensus about decision-making at the end of life, a consensus embodied in such documents as a report from the President's Commission and a report from the Hastings Center.

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) can play vital roles in observing, monitoring, and responding to research integrity (RI) issues among researchers, yet many questions remain concerning whether, when, and in what ways these boards in fact adopt these roles. Increasingly, RI is being challenged due to many factors, yet the extent of violations, and institutional responses to these, remain unknown. As the amount and complexity of experiments on human participants, often funded by for-profit industry, mushrooms, scandals have occurred, posing dilemmas concerning how to best oversee research to protect these participants from harm.

For over 15 years, many institutions have been developing research compliance programs that monitor misconduct and conflict of interest (COI), and may interact with IRBs. In 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, “Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants,” called for increased assessment of the overall human research protections system, and oversight of research.

There is a nationwide resurgence of tuberculosis (TB) in the country’s urban centers; New York City stands at the forefront of this resurgence. The root causes are increased homelessness, drug addiction and poverty, all symbols of deteriorating social and economic conditions in the city. The inadequate level of public health resources devoted to TB has also contributed to its spread. Still, even with these factors, it is questionable whether the escalating number of TB cases in this country would have occurred without the reservoir of immunosuppressed persons, who are less resistant to the disease, created by the AIDS epidemic. The fear and urgency of this public health crisis, which has been emerging since the beginning of the last decade, are fueled by the rise of TB strains resistant to the first-line drugs and by the disease’s contagiousness.

Persons with dementia often prefer to participate in decisions about their health care, but may be prevented from doing so because healthcare decision-making law facilitates use of advance directives or surrogate decision makers for persons with decisional impairments such as dementia. Federal and state disability law provide alternative decision-making models that do not prevent persons with mild to moderate dementia from making their own healthcare decisions at the time the decision needs to be made. In order to better promote autonomy and wellbeing, persons with dementia should be accommodated and supported so they can make their own healthcare decisions.

Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes.