Preemption is a powerful strategy used by special interest groups to undermine strong, local public health standards. Currently, 20 states in the U.S. have preemption ordinances in place related to clean indoor air initiatives. These preemption laws are the direct result of an ongoing and aggressive campaign of tobacco companies to thwart clean indoor air initiatives, which ultimately, according to tobacco industry internal documents, cause significant reductions in their annual revenues. Clean indoor air policies have arisen from a greater understanding of the documented health risks associated with exposure to secondhand smoke and action by local government (city councils, county commissions, and boards of health) to protect the public from these hazards. The efforts of the tobacco industry undermine local authority and seek to shift policy action to the state and federal levels, where the industry has greater political influence.

Access to care has become a key and contentious issue in the Canadian health care system. In this article, I explore the role of Canadian courts in determining rights to access public health insurance (Medicare), beginning with a brief overview of the Canadian system and its distinguishing features, and then moving to discuss challenges to governmental limits on publicly-funded Medicare using the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I argue that the Canadian courts are not, as is often charged, proactive in this area. I question whether the deference exhibited by courts to governmental limits on Medicare is justified given concerns about the fairness of the principles and processes followed by decision-makers. In sharp relief to the judiciary’s conservative approach to applications for better or timely access to publicly-funded Medicare is the recent Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) which upheld a right to buy private health insurance for “medically necessary” hospital and physician services.

The legalization of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains a hotly debated issue throughout the United States, and continues to capture the attention of government officials at both the state and federal levels. While the practice is currently legal in Oregon, some federal lawmakers and officials from the U.S. Department of Justice have attempted to outlaw that state's practice through legislation (e.g., the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999), or through a strained interpretation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. And while several citizen groups throughout the United States have attempted but failed to legalize PAS through popular initiative, several state lawmakers have succeeded in specifically outlawing the practice. Yet even though physician-assisted suicide (PAS) remains unlawful in every state except Oregon, there is ample evidence that American physicians throughout the United States have participated in PAS by providing their terminally ill patients with lethal prescriptions.

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is a multibillion dollar market in the United States (U.S.), generating a continual demand for oocyte donors whose gametes contributed to 12.6% of all ART cycles in 2012. Oocyte donation is a variant of in vitro fertilization (IVF) that is typically used when an intended mother cannot produce healthy oocytes of her own and instead uses oocytes provided by a third party in an attempt to produce one or more children. When oocyte donation was first developed, oocyte donors were selected among family and friend groups but, increasingly, active solicitation of anonymous donors and brokering the relationship between donor and recipient has become part of the services offered by fertility clinics. In addition, recipients may choose to work with an independent donor agency to find a suitable donor before completing the IVF procedure at a fertility clinic.

As we enter the new century, humanity wields increasing power to understand, alter, and control the world in which we live. The mysteries of our genetic code provide remarkable new insights into our unique human characteristics. Rapid developments in information technology provide instant access to limitless data. The information age has taken hold, and the genetic revolution is in full swing. With apologies to Aldous Huxley, we stand at the precipice of a brave new world.

It has been just 50 years since James Watson and Francis Crick's groundbreaking discovery of the double helix. Since then, profound developments in the science of genetics have been staggering. More staggering still are the potential benefits, the boundless horizons, the promised and unimagined applications of their work, and the work of the many scientists involved in the sequencing of the human genome. There can be no doubt that a firm and unwavering commitment to the betterment of humankind has fueled this tireless effort.

Many studies have shown that marijuana can negatively affect the cognitive development of adolescents. For some individuals, marijuana use may also initiate opioid use, dose escalation, and opioid use disorder. States that legalize marijuana should help adolescents through regulation of advertising and availability of marijuana-infused edibles. Such policies may assist in protecting neurodevelopment of the adolescent and young adult brain. The federal government should also remove its prohibition of marijuana sales and use, leaving their regulation to state law-makers.

In financial disputes involving research, the parties are traditionally individual researchers and their institutions, biotech and pharmaceutical companies, and other entities engaged in the commercial development of biomedical research. Occasionally, research subjects claim that researchers have misled them or misappropriated their biological materials to derive financial gain. The best known example is the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, decided in 1990.

With new developments in genomics, large-scale repositories of tissue and other biological specimens are increasingly important. Biobanks have been established by various researchers, commercial entities, health-care institutions, and even entire countries. Individuals who contribute specimens almost always retain no commercial interest in any resulting research and language to that effect is now customarily included in informed consent documents signed at the time the specimen is given. Suppose, however, that the research subjects actually collect the specimens themselves, recruit the researcher, and provide financial support for the research.

The escalating cost of health care has forced people to confront the possibility of rationing—forgoing beneficial care for patients so that the resources might be used either for other current or prospective patients or for entirely different things in life than health care. Rationing of some sort makes eminent sense, not just economically; only those who are fanatics about health and medicine would urge that everything possible be spent on health care for even the slightest marginal benefit. Yet actual rationing of health care is usually thought to exact high, or at least disturbing, ethical costs.

I will examine four of these costs here: (1) the sacrifice of physician loyalty to patients, (2) the substitution of misleading and discriminatory numerical measurements of medicine's human benefit for more sensitive qualitative judgments, (3) the unfair bite that rationing is likely to take first out of poor people's care before it affects wealthier patients, and (4) the general Substitution of public, group standards about life and health for the values and decisions of individuals.

By the beginning of 1988, nearly six hundred babies had been born through surrogate mothering arrangements. Although there have been a number of lawsuits concerning custody or challenging adoption laws that appear to prohibit payments to surrogates, the majority of surrogacy arrangements proceed without judicial involvement. Nevertheless, surrogate mothering has engendered considerable activity in state legislatures, as well as two bills in Congress to ban the practice (H.R.2433 and H.R. 3264) and hearings by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism, and Hazardous Wastes. Most recently, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) released a report, Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. That report included the results of a survey of surrogate-mother matching services active in the United States in late 1987.

In one of his few decisions addressing the interface of law and medicine, Oliver Wendell Holmes observed that, The patient has no more right to all the truth than he has to all the medicine in the physician’s saddlebag. He should only get so much as is good for him.

During the last 60 or so years, the question of how much medical information is indeed good for the patient has been the subject of innumerable lawsuits. From this plethora of litigation, a clear common law trend which favors maximum disclosure of information has become evident. Relying upon the fiduciary nature of the physician-patient relationship, the courts have imposed upon the physician a duty to inform a patient fully regarding the condition of his or her body. It is appropriate, therefore, to examine various exemplary case decisions in an effort to portray effectively the nature and scope of the physician’s rights and responsibilities in this context.

Open any standard bioethics textbook, and therein can be found a host of subjects ranging from the abortion rights controversy to the morality of xenographic tissue transplantation. Just as there is a wide scope to the subject matter of bioethics, its practitioners come from a multitude of disciplines, including law, medicine, nursing, theology, philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And yet, despite a rich variety of investigators and methods, bioethicists overlook numerous subjects that deserve to be addressed. In particular, they neglect issues of public health, preventive medicine, and social medicine. Although topics such as physician-assisted suicide, prenatal genetic testing, and the ethics of new reproductive technologies constitute the contemporary canon of bioethics and deserve sustained analysis, these subjects are not so significant that they should eclipse other issues. For example, gun control policies, the regulation of food additives. immunization programs, prenatal care, leave programs enabling employees to care for dying relatives, the provision of nutrition and medical care to the homeless, and the use of emergency rooms by the most impoverished citizens are all topics neglected by bioethicists.

In his accompanying article, Dr. Kinscherff has convincingly demonstrated why a categorical exclusion of personality disorders from the definition of “mental disease” in insanity defense adjudication is arbitrary, both conceptually and clinically. He explains his position in the context of a vignette involving a hypothetical defendant, Wilhelmina Sykes, charged with ramming her car into another car obstructing her path, causing serious injury to its driver. Dr. Kinscherff correctly points out that the determinative issue in applying the insanity defense in any case, including the hypothetical case involving Ms. Sykes, is whether the defendant experienced a legally relevant functional impairment at the time of the offense. In many states — and in the hypothetical jurisdiction in which Ms. Sykes is being prosecuted — the relevant functional impairments are those that could have affected her ability “to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct” or “to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law.

This paper describes novel tobacco control laws passed in New York City in 2017. These laws are designed to improve the city's strategy of using price to decrease tobacco consumption, and over time, change the city's landscape by making tobacco less accessible.

In 1995, Dennis Thompson, the founding director of Harvard’s program in Ethics and the Professions, authored a book entitled Ethics in Congress. That subject, in and of itself, seemingly was not new. And it undoubtedly inspired a few irreverent snickers. Consider that a Goggle search of “Ethics in Congress oxymoron” recently produced 5.79 million results in just over a tenth of a second.

But it was the subtitle of the book — From Individual to Institutional Corruption — that revealed how Thompson’s tome signaled an abrupt departure from the standard paradigms for measuring political corruption.

Commentators tout the societal benefits of research to conclude that people have a civic duty to participate in it. A review of several problems in research demonstrate the contrary and reveal why claims we are duty-bound to participate in research deter urgently needed efforts to tackle multiple entrenched deficiencies in it.

There is growing recognition of the need to understand societal impacts of nanotechnology. Global interest in nanotechnology implies many nations will see a need to seek out advantages for military use. Militarization will inevitably include consideration of both offensive and defensive goals. This presents emerging implications for military forces in the near future, and will greatly influence the nature of warfare and peacekeeping in the distant future. The development of nanotechnology creates possibilities for both beneficial opportunities and adverse consequences as a result of application to the military strategies of both large and small nations.

The promise of nanotechnology for military and security roles derives from several innate characteristics. For example, further improvements in sensors are expected and already there are numerous reports of successful developments in research and development. Material properties can be tailored on a fine scale through nanomachining, scanning force microscopy, molecular self-assembly, and other techniques.

Despite spending more on health care than every other industrialized country, the U.S. ranks 37th in health outcomes. These differences cannot be explained away with differences in age and income, or even with quality of care. And, the rate of growth in health care spending in the U.S. continues to increase. The share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) attributable to health care grew from 9% in 1980 to more than 17% in 2011. Health care costs are projected to account for more than one-fifth of our economy by 2021. Despite spending more and more, the U.S. does not have better health outcomes than other countries. Worse, our increasing spending is largely attributable to preventable conditions. More than 85 cents of every dollar spent on health in the U.S. are spent on the treatment and management of chronic diseases, such as those caused by preventable conditions related to obesity and tobacco use.