To circumvent objections that the death penalty was “cruel and unusual punishment” and therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, advocates proposed lethal injection and the involvement of physicians to overcome the negative perceptions associated with the death penalty, and to increase public acceptability of the practice. Initiated in 1982, lethal injection is now the primary method of execution in 37 of the 38 states with the death penalty. “To be exact, this method has been used to kill 788 of the 956 men and women who have been executed in the United States since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court.” More recently, of the 191 executions performed in the United States since 2001, 189 have been by lethal injection.

This “medicalization” of the death penalty has ignited a debate, by those within the medical profession and by others outside it, about the appropriateness of physicians participating in executions.

Equity is a foundational concept for the new World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Treaty. WHO Member States are currently negotiating to turn this undefined concept into tangible outcomes by borrowing a policy mechanism from international environmental law: “access and benefit-sharing” (ABS).

The United States relies on uncompensated family caregivers to provide most of the long-term care required by older adults as they age. But such care comes at a significant financial cost to these caregivers in the form of lower lifetime earnings and diminished (or even no) Social Security retirement benefits, ineligibility for Medicare coverage of their healthcare costs, and minimal retirement savings. To reduce the impact of uncompensated caregiving on the intergenerational transmission of poverty, this paper discusses three possible mechanisms of compensating family caregivers: public payments, deemed wage credits under Social Security, and income tax incentives.

Debates about how much it costs to treat persons with AIDS and how the burden of these costs is and ought to be distributed raise fundamental questions about social policy in the United States. The most important questions concern entitlement: Who has what obligations to provide what services to whom, under what conditions and at whose expense?

As a result of our political history, we were unprepared for the challenge of AIDS to social policy in the 1980s. We had, over a half-century, linked entitlement to medical care to age, disability, employment, and, for people with end-stage renal disease, to diagnosis. Our policies proved inadequate to pay for medical care for persons who died at considerably younger ages than normal, who were disabled for a brief period that was still long enough to end their employability, and whose condition progressed with unusual rapidity from diagnosis to death. By early 1988, it was clear that we would, as a society, assume the substantial costs of caring for persons with AIDS. Who would pay, and how equitably we would provide care, remained in debate.

Jeffrey Kahn and I agree that organ donation by altruistic strangers is acceptable, and that the organ procured this way ought to be allocated equitably. Our agreement in principle, however, is challenged in the details of its application. Specifically, I want to focus on three issues raised by Kahn that merit further discussion: whether relationships matter; how kidneys should be allocated; and the ethical acceptability of the expanded donor pool.

Nanomedicine is a rapidly growing field in the academic as well as commercial arena. While some had predicted nanomedicine sales to reach $20.1 billion in 2011, the actual growth was much more rapid, with the global nanomedicine market being valued at $53 billion in 2009, and forecast to increase at an annual growth rate of 13.5% to reach more than $100 billion in 2014. In 2006, more than 130 nanotechnology-based drugs and delivery systems had entered preclinical, clinical, or commercial development. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) reviewed 18 marketing authorization applications for nanomedicines in 2010. In 2011, 22 drugs that had been approved by the FDA, and 87 Phase I and Phase II clinical trials were listed in the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) data base, www.clinicaltrials.gov. Although the fastest growing areas of nanomedicine are applications in medical imaging and diagnosis using contrast-enhancing agents, most nanomedicine research and commercialization is in the area of cancer drug therapy, including nano gold shells.

The Baby M case has forced us to take sides in the public debate over surrogate motherhood. Last year, advocates of this form of noncoital reproduction praised the New Jersey trial court for supporting the freedom to contract for such womb renting services, while critics warned that enforcement of such surrogacy contracts would condone the sale of babies and the exploitation of women as baby factories. In its unanimous opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the critics. Based on New Jersey's adoption law and public policy, the court refused to enforce the contract that provided money to a surrogate mother in return for her agreeing to be artificially inseminated with the Semen of another woman's husband, to conceive a child, to carry it to term, and to relinquish her parental rights and surrender her child to the natural father and his wife, regardless of the child's best interests.

In this manuscript, “Intersectional Structural Stigma, Community Priorities, and Opportunities for Transgender Health Equity,” Poteat and Simmons outline the legal and policy barriers that impede efforts to end the HIV epidemic among transgender people in the South. They present qualitative and quantitative data from a community engaged research study conducted with transgender adults and other key stakeholders as well as finding from an analysis of policies impacting transgender people in both states. Violence prevention and decriminalization are highlighted as key policy initiatives that would advance health equity for transgender people.

Each decade since 1979, the Healthy People initiative establishes the national prevention agenda and provides the foundation for disease prevention and health promotion policies and programs. Law and policy have been included in Healthy People objectives from the start, but not integrated into the overall initiative as well as possible to potentially leverage change to meet Healthy People targets and goals. This article provides background on the Healthy People initiative and its use among various stakeholder groups, describes the work of a project aiming to better integrate law and policy into this initiative, and discusses the development of Healthy People 2030 — the next iteration of health goals for the nation. Lessons from the preliminary stages of developing Healthy People by the HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee (Committee) on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 and a Federal Interagency Workgroup will be included. Efforts by the Committee focused on the role of law and policy as determinants of health and valuable resources around health equity are also shared. Finally, the article discusses ways that law and policy can potentially be tools to help meet Healthy People targets and to attain national health goals.

During the last 115 years, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) has promulgated more than 300 uniform or model acts. These acts have been drafted to produce uniformity among state laws, and to provide clarity and stability in critical areas of the law. Uniform Anatomical Gift Acts were promulgated in 1968 and again in 1987. The third and most recent revision of the Act was promulgated in 2006 and amended in 2007. This act (UAGA 2006) was placed on NCCUSL’s target list; that is, commissioners were asked to make its enactment a priority in their home states. In 2007, 20 states enacted UAGA 2006; by mid-2008, UAGA 2006 had been introduced or enacted in over a dozen more states and the District of Columbia. NCCUSL’s goal for UAGA 2006 is enactment in all states by 2009.

Today, public health regulation at all levels faces unprecedented challenges both at home and abroad. The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C., by the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the anthrax bioterrorism that followed shortly thereafter have put public health regulation at the forefront of homeland security. The anthrax scare, in particular, has greatly tested the American public health system, calling into question whether the United States and its component states and localities are prepared to handle a major outbreak of infectious disease, such as smallpox, in a future bioterrorist action. While the response of public health agencies was commendable, especially in light of the magnitude of the assaults, it is manifestly clear that the American public health system will be hard pressed to meet similar challenges that may lie ahead.

The events of fall 2001 follow a period of major challenges for public health. The AIDS pandemic has killed millions of people throughout the globe, especially in Africa and other parts of the developing world.

As the quote above indicates, economists generally are more comfortable with self interest as a motivating force for social benefit than with altruism. This is because in most instances in a market economy, self interest will lead agents to provide benefits for others. Ultimately this is because the butcher or baker will not get paid unless he does something that others are willing to pay for. This is the source of the famous “invisible hand,” also discussed by Adam Smith.

This might sound trivial, except that in discussing aspects of medicine we seem to lose sight of this mechanism and rely on other tools to provide benefits. These tools do not work as well as naked self interest would. Some might say that medicine and medical progress is too important to depend on the market.

Research uses of human bodies maintained by mechanical ventilation after being declared dead by neurological criteria (“heart-beating cadavers”), were first published in the early 1980s with a renewed interest in research on the newly or nearly dead occurring in about last decade. While this type of research may take many different forms, recent technologic advances in genomic sequencing along with high hopes for genomic medicine, have inspired interest in genomic research with the newly dead. For example, the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) program through the National Institutes of Health aims to collect large numbers of diverse human tissues with the eventual goal of elucidating the genetic bases of common diseases through a better understanding of the relationship between genetic variation and gene expression.

The issue of death due to medical errors is not new. We have all heard horror stories about patients dying in the hospital because of a drug mix-up or a surgery patient having the wrong limb amputated. Most people believed these stories were the exception to the rule until November 1999, when the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report entitled To Err Is Human: Building A Safer Health System. This report focused on medical errors and patient safety in U.S. hospitals. The report indicated that as many as 44,000 to 98,000 people die each year in hospitals as a result of medical errors. These numbers suggest that more Americans are killed in U.S.hospitals every 6 months than died in the entire Vietnam War, and some have compared the alleged rate to fully loaded jumbo jets crashing every other day. This report was not without its critics.

During an emergency, laws serve crucial functions, including clarifying responsibilities, authorizing critical interventions, and protecting vulnerable populations. However, provisions of existing laws designed for normal, non-emergency circumstances may sometimes hinder emergency response efforts, thereby potentially endangering the public's health rather than protecting it. Pursuant to declared states of emergency, disaster, or public health emergency, however, the legal landscape changes in several important ways. Interventions not legally permissible under non-emergency circumstances become available. One key example is authority to temporarily waive legal provisions that may impede emergency response efforts, such as professional licensing requirements, facility capacity limitations, pharmaceutical pedigree obligations, and state contract restrictions, among other laws spanning a host of legal spheres.

This article examines the structure and use of waiver authority in emergencies. It provides recent examples of waivers and analyzes potential application to a hypothetical emergency scenario.