The World Conference on Human Rights (the Vienna Conference) that was held in Vienna in 1993, marked an important beginning in the recognition of reproductive and sexual rights as human rights. Among other goals, the Vienna Conference sought to end gender discrimination in all its manifestations; gender-based violence, sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation. However, the turning point for the development of reproductive and sexual rights was the consensus that emanated from the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994 (the Cairo Conference), and the Fourth World Conference on Women in held in Beijing 1995 (the Beijing Conference) as evidenced by the programs for action that were adopted.

The Cairo Conference defined reproductive health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.”

“It was the best of times. It was the worst of times.” Charles Dickens easily could have been describing our time and the dilemma in which victims of nonmalignant chronic pain find themselves.

I am a forty-six-year-old registered nurse who specializes in oncology care and education. I am also a patient who suffers from chronic nonmalignant pain, and this malady has been the most frightening, the most humiliating, and the most difficult ordeal of my life.

The morning of February 1983 severed my life into “before” and “after,” as clearly as if it has been cut by a sharp knife. The “before” included my career as an oncology nurse, a college nursing professor, and a writer; but that was abruptly ended by the catastrophic rupture of a deep cerebral aneurysm. Surgery saved my life, but something unforeseen occurred during the procedure; and so, in the “after,” I have had to live with a serious seizure disorder and memory loss.

The Diagnosis Confirmation Model (DCM) includes a dual-pricing mechanism designed to support value-based pricing of novel antibiotics while improving the alignment of financial incentives with their optimal use in patients at high risk of drug-resistant infections. DCM is a market-based model and complementary to delinked models. Policymakers interested in stimulating antibiotic innovation could consider tailoring the DCM to their reimbursement systems and incorporating it into the suite of incentives to improve the economics of antibiotics.

The proposed changes to the Common Rule, described in the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), come more than 20 years after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services adopted the Rule in 1991. Since that time, human subjects research has changed in significant ways. Not only has the volume of clinical research grown dramatically, this research is now regularly conducted at multiple collaborative sites that are often outside of the United States. Research takes place not only in academic medical centers, but also at outpatient clinics, community hospitals, and other nontraditional venues. In addition, technological advances, such as sophisticated computer software programs, the Internet, social media, new research methods, and mobile applications have exponentially increased the volume of data available and the possibilities for accessing, analyzing, and sharing that data.

This essay describes how longstanding conceptions of professionalism in American medical care came under attack in the decades since the enactment of Medicare in 1965 and how the reform strategy and core provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) illustrate the weakening of those ideas and the institutional practices embodying them.

The opening identifies the dominant role of physicians in American medical care in the two decades after World War II. By the time Medicare was enacted in 1965, associations of American physicians were almost completely in charge of medical education, specialist certification, and the enforcement of professional norms on their members. Who could be a doctor, what education and training would be required, and what collegial oversight was operative was first a professional matter and only secondly implicated the state through malpractice or major corporations via the employment of physicians.

The physician-researcher conflict of interest, a long-standing and widely recognized ethical challenge of clinical research, has thus far eluded satisfactory solution. The conflict is fairly straightforward. Medical research and medical therapy are distinct pursuits; the former is aimed at producing generalizable knowledge for the benefit of future patients, whereas the latter is aimed at addressing the individualized medical needs of a particular patient. When the physician-researcher combines these pursuits, he or she serves two masters and cannot — no matter how well-intentioned — avoid the risk of compromising the duties owed in one of the professional roles assumed. Because of the necessary rigidity of a research protocol, the more demanding of the two masters is frequently the research.

The problem of the physician-researcher conflict has been evident since the first attempts to regulate human research in the United States. Otto E. Guttentag, a physician at the University of California School of Medicine in San Francisco, addressed the conflict in a 1953 Science magazine article.

Safe and healthy housing conditions are critical to improving population health, particularly for the most vulnerable – young children, senior citizens, and individuals with chronic illnesses and disabilities – who spend more time at home and are more susceptible to illness and injury. Across the country, millions of Americans are exposed to lead, radon, asbestos, volatile organic compounds, pests, mold, carbon monoxide, and tobacco smoke in the home, affecting the air they breathe and the water they drink. These household hazards are also associated with a wide range of illnesses and injuries, including asthma, cancer, falls, respiratory infections, and mental health issues. Legal and policy interventions can assist communities grappling with the adverse impacts of poor housing conditions and improve the health and safety of all residents, including vulnerable populations.

Food insecurity in the United States is a profound public health challenge that hospitals are uniquely situated to address. Through the enactment of the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program, the Affordable Care Act provides a strong economic incentive for hospitals to actively confront food insecurity within the communities they serve. While there is a spectrum of nutrition interventions that hospitals can look to when engaging in these efforts, healthy food prescriptions and medically tailored meals are two particularly innovative and promising approaches that could help hospitals reduce readmissions by addressing the nutritional needs of vulnerable patients.

Participant-driven research (PDR) is a burgeoning domain of research innovation, often facilitated by mobile technologies (mHealth). Return of results and data are common hallmarks, grounded in transparency and data democracy. PDR has much to teach traditional research about these practices and successful engagement. Recommendations calling for new state laws governing research with mHealth modalities common in PDR and federal creation of review mechanisms, threaten to stifle valuable participant-driven innovation, including in return of results.

As a consequence of the problems caused by genetic discrimination, federal and state law makers are being pressured to pass a legislative remedy. A primary question is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) applies to (1) individuals with a potentially disabling genetic disorder who are pre-symptomatic or asymptomatic and may never become ill and to (2) healthy individuals who are carriers of genetic conditions. At present, this question has relevance principally for individuals with the genotype for single gene disorders, like Huntington disease and hemochromatosis, and to asymptomatic carriers of single gene disorders such as cystic fibrosis. Although many such single gene conditions exist, the total incidence of these conditions in the U.S. population is less than 0.4 percent. However, the question concerning the applicability of the ADA will become increasingly important because genetic tests will almost certainly be developed in the near future for common multifactorial diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and certain forms of cancer.

Health research raises profound concerns of an ethical and legal nature — concerns primarily centered on how to balance researchers’ quest for scientific discovery against societal interest in protecting individuals whose participation makes the discovery possible. Particularly in a country such as Nigeria, which, not too long ago, suffered major abuse of research subjects (Pfizer’s clinical trial of Trovafloxacin and resulting death of eleven children in 1996), deploying a robust ethicolegal regime capable of curbing excesses and protecting research participants whilst contemporaneously not frustrating scientific progress is not an easy task. This is even more critical in the context of novel scientific endeavors, such as biobanking and genomic research, particularly when a significant pool of potential donors are inadequately informed about the processes involved in their participation or the result.

Mrs. K is a thirty-one-year-old Russian-speaking mother of two, who was brought in by ambulance after attempting suicide by jumping in front of train. Probable depression x months. Stressor: lost custody battle over older child. Current status: deep coma, ventilator-dependent, and prognosis grim. Next of kin is estranged husband; he demands participation in medical decision making. Legal proxy is patient's boyfriend; forcibly removed from the intensive care unit (ICU) for agitated behavior and alcohol intoxication.

I magine the difficulty for the ICU staff as it tries to patch together the broken body of Mrs. K, described above. If, as appears likely, the physicians’ efforts begin to fail, who will speak for this patient, who can no longer speak for herself, and determine the appropriate goals and limits of intensive medical care?

In most other nations, insurance for medical care is called sickness insurance, and it covers sick people. In the United States, we have “health insurance,” and its major carriers — commercial insurers, large employers, and increasingly government programs — strive to avoid sick people and cover only the healthy. This perverse logic at the heart of the American health insurance system is the key to reform debates.

Focusing on sick people versus healthy people might seem a strange way to view the coverage issue. Most discussions of insurance categorize people into other groupings: the insured versus the uninsured; Caucasian whites versus other racial and ethnic groups; men versus women; poor and low-income people versus everybody else; children, adults, and the elderly; or citizens versus immigrants and undocumented aliens. More recently, health researchers have begun talking about “vulnerable populations,” using most of the same demographic groupings and adding other illness-inducing factors such as social isolation, stress, and impoverished neighborhoods. But as I will show, insurance plans now use premiums, cost-sharing, and other design features in ways that indirectly divide each of these groups into the sick and the healthy, to the detriment of the sick. By shifting the costs of illness onto people who use medical care — that is, sick people — market-oriented reforms of the last few decades have eroded insurance in the name of strengthening it.

This article examines how public health addresses alcohol use through marketing — place, product, promotion, and price. The article reviews current product trends and how restrictions on certain products designs may reduce youth consumption; how product availability may be restricted through zoning; and the current advertising landscape.

This article examines how federal law enforcement has responded to the opioid epidemic nationally and in a variety of locales. We focus in depth on two initiatives, including prosecution in opioid-death cases, undertaken by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut.

This article explores how health governance has evolved into an enormously complicated—and inequitable and exclusionary—system of privatized, fragmented bureaucracy, and argues for addressing these deficiencies and promoting health justice by radically deepening democratic participation to rebalance decision-making power. It presents a framework for promoting four primary outcomes from health governance: universality, equity, democratic control, and accountability, which together define health justice through deep democracy. It highlights five mechanisms that hold potential to bring this empowered participatory mode of governance into health policy: participatory needs assessments, participatory human rights budgeting, participatory monitoring, public health care advocates, and citizen juries.

In the first reported judicial interpretation of modern nursing practice acts, Sermchief v. Gonzales, the Missouri Supreme Court has decided that “new functions for nurses delivering health services” may evolve without statutory constraints.’ The notion that nurses in expanded roles are practicing medicine without a license was cast aside, as the court specifically held that nurses may render diagnosis and treatment in accordance with standing orders and protocols. While directly affecting only nurses in Missouri, the court's recognition of nursing as a profession with its own prerogatives and responsibilities has important implications for the future of nursing.

At issue was Missouri's nursing practice act which had been drafted with the assistance of members of the Missouri Nurses Association and passed by the legislature in 1975.