In 1982, cinemas around the world screened Sophie's Choice, a film starring Meryl Streep and Kevin Kline, adapted from the book by William Styron. The film opens with Stingo, a young journalist from the South, who arrives in New York in 1947 and rents a room in Brooklyn. Stingo is drawn into a relationship with Sophie and Nathan, the couple who live upstairs. Sophie is a Polish concentration camp survivor; Nathan is the man who saved her when she arrived in America. Nathan is charismatic, schizophrenic, and violent.

In one of the film's flashbacks, a German soldier imposes a terrible choice on Sophie, a young mother who arrives at Auschwitz with other prisoners from Krakow. Sophie is ordered to choose which of her two children will be sent to the ovens, and which will live.

Specialists and primary care physicians play an integral role in treating the twin epidemics of pain and addiction. But inadequate access to specialists causes much of the treatment burden to fall on primary physicians. This article chronicles the differences between treatment contexts for both pain and addiction — in the specialty and primary care contexts — and derives a series of reforms that would empower primary care physicians and better leverage specialists.

Although the federal government and several state governments have recognized that structural discrimination limits less privileged groups’ ability to be healthy, the measures adopted to eliminate health disparities do not address structural discrimination. Historical and modern-day structural discrimination in employment has limited racial and ethnic minority individuals’ economic conditions by segregating them to low wage jobs that lack benefits, which has been associated with health disparities. Health justice provides a community-driven approach to transform the government’s efforts to eliminate health disparities, by acknowledging the problem of structural discrimination; empowering less privileged groups to create and implement structural change; and providing support to redress harm.

As citizen science expands, questions arise regarding the applicability of norms and policies created in the context of conventional science. This article focuses on data sharing in the conduct of health-related citizen science, asking whether citizen scientists have obligations to share data and publish findings on par with the obligations of professional scientists. We conclude that there are good reasons for supporting citizen scientists in sharing data and publishing findings, and we applaud recent efforts to facilitate data sharing. At the same time, we believe it is problematic to treat data sharing and publication as ethical requirements for citizen scientists, especially where there is the potential for burden and harm without compensating benefit.

It is no secret that one of the biggest public health challenges facing this nation is the obesity epidemic. Two-thirds of adults and one-third of children and teens are either obese or overweight. For adults, the number of obese has doubled since 1980, and for children age 6-11 the number of obese has quadrupled. The epidemic has changed what we thought we knew about medicine. For example, until fairly recently, type 2 diabetes was known as “adult-onset” diabetes. But doctors have dropped this moniker as youth account for almost half of new type 2 diabetes in certain communities. Further, there has always been an assumption that life spans and health would improve with advancements in medicine and technology. However, obesity is related to over 20 major chronic diseases, and therefore obese children are more than twice as likely to die before the age of 55 compared to healthy-weight children. In other words, if trends are not reversed, America’s current generation of children are likely to have shorter life spans than their parents.

There is much discourse and focus on the social determinants of health, but undergirding these multiple intersecting and interacting determinants are legal and political determinants that have operated at every level and impact the entire life continuum. The United States has long grappled with advancing health equity via public law and policy. Seventy years after the country was founded, lawmakers finally succeeded in passing the first comprehensive and inclusive law aimed at tackling the social determinants of health, but that effort was short-lived. Today the United States is faced with another fork in the road relative to the advancement of health equity. This article draws on lessons from history and law to argue that researchers, providers, payers, lawmakers and the legal community have a moral, economic and national security imperative to address not only the negative outcomes of health disparities, but also the imbalance of inputs resulting from laws and policies which fail to employ an equity lens.

Health justice is an aspirational north star for scholars, practitioners, and anyone who refuses to accept the status quo of profound inequity. But what does health justice mean? How ought we conceptualize it? There is no correct answer to these questions, but any robust rendering of health justice must account for power and politics. This article posits that the path to health justice requires political struggle taking (at least) two forms: (1) building power and (2) breaking power. Building power for health justice means cultivating the political capacity of people who are disproportionately harmed by health inequity, and who therefore have the most at stake. Breaking power involves weakening and destabilizing the economic and political forces that perpetuate health inequity. By surfacing and elaborating these crucial modes of political struggle, this article points to a way forward for achieving health justice.

The food supply is complicated and consumers are increasingly calling for labeling on food to be more informative. In particular, consumers are asking for the labeling of food derived from genetically modified organisms (GMO) based on health, safety, and environmental concerns. At issue is whether the labels that are sought would accurately provide the information desired. The present study examined consumer (n = 181) perceptions of health, safety and the environment for foods labeled organic, natural, fat free or low fat, GMO, or non-GMO. Findings indicated that respondents consistently believed that foods labeled GMO are less healthy, safe and environmentally-friendly compared to all other labels (ps < .05). These results suggest that labels mean something to consumers, but that a disconnect may exist between the meaning associated with the label and the scientific consensus for GMO food. These findings may provide insight for the development of labels that provide information that consumers seek.

Government’s responsibility to safeguard the public’s health through law has been part of the social contract since ancient times. Cicero declared salus populi suprema lex esto - “the safety of the people is the supreme law”. Disraeli proclaimed that protecting the public’s health is the first duty of the statesman. Of the ten most important public health achievements of the 20th century in the US., seven are directly related to legal interventions, including legislative interventions. As new and existing risks to health risks emerge internationally, governments have consistently used the law as a tool to define the goals of public health, direct public health authorities to accomplish these goals, and equip them with the power and resources to do so.

Tobacco control represents a salient example of how law can be used to ensure health. Like other public health laws, tobacco control laws have historic grounds. Government and other policymakers have enacted laws to control tobacco use for hundreds of years. The Russian church forbade tobacco use as an “abomination.”

For years, the collection of DNA samples from individuals arrested for criminal misconduct has been advocated by police officials and endorsed by politicians. Louisiana, Virginia, California, and South Dakota have adopted laws to add DNA profiles derived from these samples to their DNA databases. Texas provides for DNA to be taken after indictment but before conviction. Although the U.S. Department of Justice initially shied away from the issue, the DNA Fingerprint Act of 20055 authorizes the collection of DNA from individuals arrested for violations of certain federal criminal laws, and the inclusion in the national DNA database of all profiles from states that type DNA prior to conviction.

But are these laws constitutional? In an article in a previous issue of this journal, and reprinted in this issue, Professor Tracey Maclin concludes that fidelity to precedent should lead the Supreme Court to strike down the Louisiana and Virginia laws as violations of the Fourth Amendment.

This manuscript describes the institutional and clinical considerations that apply to the question of whether to mandate opioid dose reduction in patients who have received opioids long-term. It describes how a calamitous rise in addiction and overdose involving opioids has both led to a clinical recalibration by healthcare providers, and to strong incentives favoring forcible opioid reduction by policy making agencies. Neither the 2016 Guideline issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nor clinical evidence can justify or promote such policies as safe or effective.

In recent years, there has been a slow but dramatic change in society's attitudes toward persons with disabilities—an evolution away from traditional paternalistic approaches which foster dependency, toward policies focused on maximizing the potential for autonomy and independence among individuals of limited capacity. This change is clearly reflected in efforts across the country to revise state guardianship statutes. This article analyzes significant trends in these reform efforts, and highlights important practice implications for physicians and attorneys whose practices include serving persons who are limited in their capacity to make informed decisions.

The development of concepts of autonomy and paternalism, as applied to children, women, the mentally ill and mentally retarded, and the elderly, has been a remarkable journey for philosophers, lawyers, physicians, caregivers, and politicians. Autonomy and paternalism have moved together in uneasy company to new definitions and applications derived in an extended dialectical process that has not only refined the definitions but also moved them away from the extreme ends of the gamut. To the extent that autonomy is equated with independence of action and paternalism is equated with coercive actions contrary to an individual's wishes or desires in order to achieve a beneficent end, we have exercised some of the most extreme and benighted paternalism while permitting in some sectors of our lives great independence on grounds of classical autonomy. Refinements of these concepts have moved us to new levels of sophistication and have made us aware of new issues and problems with which we have yet to wrestle.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers.

Regulatory oversight and public communication are intimately intertwined. Oversight failures, both actual and perceived, quickly galvanize attention from both the media and the public, as has occasionally happened in all of the historical cases with which this symposium is concerned — gene therapy, workplace chemicals, drugs and devices, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially those used as (or in) foods. Some developments, such as GMOs, seem to have more cultural significance or “cultural resonance” than others and are especially likely to garner public attention. Developments in nanotechnology, on the other hand, do not seem to have captured as much popular attention. However, the accelerating convergence between nanotechnology as material science and biotechnology, health, and medicine could easily change this situation.

“Health in All Policies” (HiAP) is the latest manifestation of an ecological approach to public health enhancement — one that recognizes connections between health and other sectors, and that socioeconomic determinants of health are significant. HiAP is related to other holistic, prevention-oriented approaches to collective health, such as the use of Health Impact Assessments to evaluate the health externalities of pending government decisions. Yet HiAP is unique. It goes beyond evaluation of specific projects and policies, and embodies a distinct approach to cross-sectoral public health work.

Criticisms of the traditional clinical research pathway and its extensive oversight often focus on proposals for deregulation or assert that as in clinical treatment, clinical research should always offer benefit to patient-subjects. Proponents of medical innovation take a different, middle path, arguing that innovation is distinguishable from both research and treatment. This article considers this third pathway by examining stem cell-based innovation.

Stem cell-based medical innovation is one pathway toward clinical translation. In fact, such an approach was taken in developing umbilical cord blood transplantation, which is now widely viewed as a safe and effective means for treating a range of malignant and non-malignant conditions. While the Guidelines for the Clinical Translation of Stem Cells created by the International Society for Clinical Research (ISSCR) provide an approach to clinical translation that involves “responsible innovation” as an alternative to clinical research, there are at least four sets of unanswered questions regarding the use of an innovation pathway in this context that warrant careful attention.

Scholars are beginning to use the concept medicalization of poverty to theorize how the United States spends large amounts of money on illnesses related to poverty but invests much less in preventing these illnesses and the conditions that create them (e.g., economic insecurity, housing instability, continuous exposure to violence, and racism). This study examines the connection between poverty, disease burden and health-related costs through the in-depth interviews of 86 Black mothers living in neighborhoods with high levels of violence on the South Side of Chicago. The rippling costs of poverty and violence include 56 percent of the mothers reporting post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and 48 percent reporting mild to severe depressive symptoms. Mothers also report poor housing quality such as “toxic mold.” The physical costs include reports of back pains, stomach aches, hair falling out, panic attacks, hands shaking, insomnia (sometimes for two days), fainting from exhaustion and lack of sexual desire, and children with asthma and osteomyelitis reportedly from the exposure to mold. Transformative solutions are explored that build upon the cultural resources of Black mothers (e.g., women-centered networks, spirituality and collective-cooperatives) and engage policy levers (e.g., Earned Income Tax Credit and Tax Increment Financing).