Antibiotic resistance (ABR) poses an urgent public health risk. High rates of ABR have been noted in all regions of the globe by the World Health Organization. ABR develops when bacteria are exposed to antibiotics either during treatments in humans or animals or through environmental sources contaminated with antibiotic residues (Figure, Panel A). Spread beyond those administered antibiotics occurs through direct contact with the infected or colonized person or animal, through contact or ingestion of retail meat or agricultural products contaminated with ABR organisms, or through the environment. ABR bacteria spread from individuals to populations and across countries (Figure, Panel B).

Bedbugs are tiny, wingless insects which feed on mammal blood and leave behind painful, itchy sores. Although they can live in other settings, they are most commonly found in warm, dark places inhabited by humans, like beds. After being absent in the United States for over 60 years, thanks to powerful pesticides, bed bugs (Cimex lectularius), have returned in force and are present in every state and nearly every city. For reasons not entirely understood, bed bugs have developed resistance to traditional pesticides such as Permethrin and are therefore difficult to control. Although commonly believed to be associated with dirty housekeeping and associated with substandard housing, bed bugs are equally likely to be present in five-star hotels as they are in homeless shelters.

Community-level legal and policy innovations or “experiments” can be important levers to improve health. States and localities are empowered through the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution to use their police powers to protect the health and welfare of the public. Many legal and policy tools are available, including: the power to tax and spend; regulation; mandated education or disclosure of information, modifying the environment — whether built or natural (e.g., zoning, clean water laws); and indirect regulation (e.g., court rulings, or deregulation). These legal and policy interventions can be targeted to specific needs at the community level and are often relatively low-cost, but high impact interventions. As every community is different, effective laws and policies will vary. This freedom allows states and localities to, as Justice Louis Brandeis argued, truly serve as “laboratories of democracy.”

Surrogacy and abortion represent two facets of procreative liberty, the right to reproduce and the right to avoid reproducing. Research on stigma associated with abortion and surrogacy illuminates how these very different experiences carry similar stigmatic harm. Why do certain decisions about reproduction engender social support, other decisions social disapproval? Restrictions on surrogacy and abortion derive from a common legal paradigm — state regulation on the pregnant body — that is rooted in traditional gender roles. Not all laws restricting abortion and surrogacy evince gender stereotyping. Abortion and surrogacy pose complex moral and social dilemmas. But research of stigma associated with abortion and surrogacy suggests that gender stereotypes play a role in the creation of stigma.

As states increasingly impose informed consent mandates on abortion providers, the required disclosures bring two well-established legal doctrines into conflict — the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the physician’s duty to obtain informed consent.

On one hand, the First Amendment provides for a broad freedom of speech, under which government may neither prevent people from voicing their own views, nor compel individuals to voice the government’s views. As the Supreme Court observed in Wooley v. Maynard, the First Amendment protects “both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.” When legislatures tell physicians what they must disclose to their patients, the physicians lose their right not to speak.

Spurred by a confluence of factors, most notably the decreasing cost of high-throughput technologies and advances in information technologies, a number of population research initiatives have emerged in recent years. These include large-scale, internationally collaborative genomic projects (Table 1) and biobanks (Table 2), the latter of which can be defined as an organized collection of human biological material and associated data stored for one or more research purposes. Biobanks are a key emerging research infrastructure, and those established as prospective research resources comprising biospecimens and data from many participants are viewed as particularly promising drivers of biomedical progress. Such biobanks, particularly those publicly funded and set up to promote the public interest, have expanded across the globe in recent years.

The debate about how to manage individual research results and incidental findings in genetic and genomic research has focused primarily on what information, if any, to offer back to research participants. However, increasing controversy surrounds the question of whether researchers have any responsibility to offer a participant’s results (defined here to include both individual research results and incidental findings) to the participant’s relatives, including after the participant’s death. This question arises in multiple contexts, including when researchers discover a result with potentially important health implications for genetic relatives, when a participant’s relatives ask a researcher whether any research results about the participant have implications for their own health or reproductive planning, when a participant’s relative asks whether any of the participant’s results have implications for a child’s health, and when the participant is deceased and the participant’s relatives seek information about the participant’s genetic results in order to address their own health or reproductive concerns.

The regulation of medicine has long been recognized as within the state’s police powers. Yet when the state regulates physicians’ professional speech, it potentially raises First Amendment concerns. Nowhere is this truer than in the abortion context, where state legislatures have attempted to influence women’s reproductive decisions with informed consent requirements. Although the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, found a mandated disclosure provision constitutional some 20 years ago, it offered little to clarify the scope and reach of the First Amendment issues that arise with abortion informed consent laws.

Since Casey was decided, legislatures have enacted a range of informed consent laws that impose even more stringent abortion informed consent regulations than the provisions at issue in Casey.

The role of stigma in limiting reproductive rights has long hovered in the air. Paula Abrams has sorted through the concept and shown how it operates in two major areas of procreative liberty — having a child through surrogacy and avoiding childbirth by abortion. Her paper is especially useful for showing how legal change initially dilutes stigma but may reinstall it with post-legalization regulation.

Abrams argues that both abortion and surrogacy are stigmatized because they deviate from traditional gender roles and social expectations about pregnancy and maternity. Past restrictions have rested on a common legal and cultural paradigm of the good mother: a woman who conceives, carries her child to term, and then rears the child. Indeed, as she later argues, evidence of stigma surrounding a practice is “relevant to determining whether laws regulating abortion or surrogacy are based on impermissible stereotyping.”

In an era of unrivalled sequencing, computation and networking capability, international sharing of genomic samples and data is becoming a modus operandi for modern medical research. Researchers are collaborating to establish large collections with global scale. Having never before set foot outside the cell, the molecules that shape us are being digitized and launched across the globe. Protecting individual privacy interests in this information is a central challenge of the genomic research era.

This article reviews international privacy norms governing human genomic biobanks and databases. It will not directly consider biobanks established for other health-related purposes, such as screening or therapy. A genomic biobank is “a hybrid infrastructure,” an organized collection of human biological material combined with associated health information: physical measurements, outcome data in medical records, and epidemiological information, as well as genomic data derived from the samples.

The right to health is enshrined in the constitution of the World Health Organization and numerous other international agreements. Yet today, an estimated 5.7 million people die each year (Table 1) from treatable infectious diseases, most of which are susceptible to existing antimicrobials if they were accessible. These deaths occur predominantly among populations living in poverty in low- and middle-income countries, and they greatly exceed the estimated 700,000 annual deaths worldwide currently attributed to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Ensuring universal appropriate access to antimicrobials is not only a critical part of realizing the right to health, it is necessary for mobilizing effective collective action against the development and spread of AMR.

While the global threat of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) in 2014 was concentrated in several West African countries, its effects have been felt in many developed countries including the United States. Initial, select patients with EVD, largely among American health care workers (HCWs) volunteering in affected regions, were subsequently transported back to the states for isolation and treatment in high-level medical facilities. This included Emory University Hospital, which sits adjacent to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia.

The first domestic case of EVD occurred in late September in Dallas, Texas. Additional exposures of two HCWs generated an array of legal issues for state and local public health authorities, hospitals, and providers. Consideration of these issues led to extensive discussion among lawyers, public health practitioners, and other attendees at a late-breaking session on EVD and Legal Preparedness at the 2014 National Public Health Law conference. In this commentary, session presenters from CDC and Emory University share their expert perspectives on legal and policy issues underlying state and local powers to quarantine and isolate persons exposed to or infected with Ebola, as well as facets of hospital preparedness underlying the successful treatment of patients with EVD.

Biobank data and samples frequently endure beyond the life of the individual who provided the sample; this is particularly true for biorepositories that archive data and samples from cancer patients. Those data and samples may be used for research, including after the death of the individual. When the research produces genetic research results (a term used here to include incidental findings and individual research results) that have potential health or reproductive importance for the individual who provided the sample, the results may also have importance for blood relatives. This raises the question of whether the research results should be shared with relatives, at their request or at the initiative of the researchers. The issues are complex even when the research participant is alive, but are particularly challenging after the death of the individual whose data and sample are archived, as the individual may not have been asked their preferences about sharing with family, including after death. Even if the individual’s preferences on sharing have been elicited, investigators and biobank directors may be concerned about withholding genetic research results from relatives that are of potential health significance.