California is not alone in turning its back on the severely mentally ill. Because of financial incentives from the federal government, every state continues to close state-run psychiatric hospitals, leaving those who are poor and severely mentally ill with no treatment or care. Many cities have areas similar to San Francisco where the mentally ill suffer in public because it is cheaper to abandon the mentally ill to an open-air asylum than it is to build and fund psychiatric hospitals.

Mental illness affects the health status of about one in five Americans each year. More than five percent of adult Americans have a “serious” mental illness—an illness that interferes with social functioning. About two and one-half percent have “severe and persistent” mental illness, a categorization for the most disabling forms of mental illness, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. All mental illness interferes to some degree with social activities. Left untreated, serious mental illness can be disabling—disrupting family life, employment status and the ability to maintain housing. Nevertheless, privately insured people in the United States (that is, the majority of insured people in the United States) are not covered for mental health services to the same extent that they are covered for physical health services. Second-class coverage of mental health services reduces access to care for people with mental illness because cost becomes a significant barrier to service. The resulting lack of treatment fuels the disabling potential of mental illness.

The Institute of Medicine Report, Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities, affirms in its first finding: “Racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare exist and, because they are associated with worse outcomes in many cases, are unacceptable.” The mechanisms that generate racial and ethnic disparities in medical care operate at the levels of the healthcare system and the clinical encounter. Research demonstrates the role of healthcare system factors, including differences in insurance coverage and other determinants of healthcare access, in producing disparities. Research also shows, however, that even when insurance status and other measures of access are controlled for by statistical methods, racial and ethnic disparities persist. These disparities remain when researchers try by various methods to control for patients’ clinical characteristics. Disparities are especially well documented through comparisons between white patients and African Americans and Latinos, but they are believed to affect other minority groups. As a result, many members of minority racial and ethnic groups receive less or inferior care.

The past decade witnessed unprecedented growth in medical research involving human subjects, promising the development of new treatments that extend and improve the quality of life, as well as prevent disease. Recent biomedical breakthroughs such as the mapping of the human genome, improved understanding of pharmacokinetics and molecular biology, and novel theories about the mechanisms of diseases such as cancer have led to a proliferation of clinical trials. Such research provides the necessary bridge from scientific theory to practical medical application, and it is essential that these efforts benefit all persons who suffer from the studied diseases.

In addition to the potential long-term pay-offs, clinical trials may offer immediate dividends to enrolled subjects. The opportunity to participate in medical research carries with it a variety of potential risks and benefits. Because clinical trial participation potentially results in significant individual benefits, including access to state-of-the-art care and improved disease monitoring, fairness demands equal opportunity for inclusion whenever scientifically appropriate.

This Article examines the extent to which the U.S. healthcare system is equitable for older Latinos, using the World Health Organization (WHO) and the related Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) criteria on health outcomes, access/responsiveness and financing. We argue that improving health equity requires more than actions aimed at health behavior and culturally-based beliefs targeted at the individual. Improving equity also requires changes in broader social and political processes affecting entire populations and organizations of care, paying special attention to how these changes affect the Latino elderly.

Healthcare is particularly important for the older population. Persons age 65 and older have the highest overall rates of death, disease and disability, as well as the most frequent and intense use of medical services. U.S. public policy has acknowledged the high medical care needs of many elderly by establishing Medicare as a universal health insurance starting at age 65, and supplementing it with Medicaid, the public-assistance program for low-income older persons.

Main Street in Sarasota, Florida. A high-tech medical arts building rises from the east end, the county's historic three-story courthouse is two blocks to the west and sandwiched in between is the First Church of Christ, Scientist. A verse inscribed on the wall behind the pulpit of the church reads: “Divine Love Always Has Met and Always Will Meet Every Human Need.” This is the church where William and Christine Hermanson worshipped. It is just a few steps away from the courthouse where they were convicted of child abuse and third-degree murder for failing to provide conventional medical care for their seven-year-old daughter.

This Article is about the intersection of “divine love” and “the best interests of the child.” It is about a pluralistic society where the dominant culture reveres medical science, but where a religious minority shuns and perhaps fears that same medical science. It is also about the struggle among different religious interests to define the legal rights of the citizenry.

There is perhaps no greater tragedy in a parent's life than learning that one's child is terminally ill. Today, more than at any time in the past, when conventional treatment fails, dying children are given access to experimental treatment. To a surprising extent, society takes for granted the participation of dying children in medical experiments. In part, this is because we have come to view participation in clinical trials as a potential benefit. This view contrasts sharply with the dominant perception of the mid to late 20th century, which viewed medical research as a potential threat to vulnerable populations. Upon closer scrutiny, both of these perspectives carry with them some important truths. This Article seeks to build upon those truths by undertaking a critical analysis of contemporary ethical and legal policies governing the inclusion of terminally ill children in clinical research.

Medical research is heavily funded: the National Institutes of Health had a budget of over $20 billion in 2001, and even more money was spent by the pharmaceutical industry on research. Children's health issues, however, receive only a small fraction of these funds. In 2001, for example, less than $1 billion of NIH funding was allocated to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). In part, the problem stems from a modern predisposition to protect children from participating in research.

Several federal policies in the 1990s changed the face of the “typical research subject.” Historically, researchers sought “white men,” but the NIH announced in 1994 that all research would need to include women and minorities, and in 1998, the NIH added the requirement of including children. The shift in policies reflects a shift in focus. When the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research addressed fairness in subject selection in the Belmont Report of 1979, the main concern was ensuring fairness in the distribution of risks.

Anyone who reads numerous statutes is frequently left scratching his or her head: is this provision a deliberate, rational requirement or filler thrown in for no apparent reason? One puzzling requirement peppering state surrogacy statutes is the limitation of surrogate parenting arrangements to couples in which the intended mother is infertile, unable to bear a child or unable to carry the child without unreasonable risk to the mother or child. The legislative history of these statutes offers no explanation for this emphasis on maternal infertility.

The only attempted justification for such a requirement comes from commentators who argue that it bars women who want to avoid the nuisance of being pregnant and giving birth from using a surrogate.

Healthy People 2010 provides our Nation with the wide range of public health opportunities that exist in the first decade of the 21st century. With 467 objectives in 28 focus areas, Healthy People 2010 will be a tremendously valuable asset … . Healthy People 2010 reflects the very best in public health planning—it is comprehensive, it was created by a broad coalition of experts from many sectors, it has been designed to measure progress over time, and, most important, it clearly lays out a series of objectives to bring better health to all people in this country.

The current responses to the traditional health perils … have been weakened. At the same time, it seems to this outsider as though the entire public health establishment is united around the proposition that massive public action should be taken to deal with the new “epidemics,” such as obesity and diabetes … . But the use of the term “epidemic” is just the wrong way to think about this issue. There are no noncommunicable epidemics … . Yet the designation [of] obesity as a public health epidemic is designed to signal that state coercion is appropriate … .

This Article explores the concept of public accommodation in a civil rights context and presents an argument for revising the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act) to extend public accommodation obligations to private healthcare providers and the healthcare industry as a whole, regardless of their participation in federally assisted programs. To the extent that the Act currently reaches healthcare conduct within a relatively narrow definition of “federal assistance,” this view has been eclipsed by the evolution of social attitudes toward the community-wide obligation of healthcare providers, U.S. civil rights policy at both the federal and state levels, the enormity of the federal investment in the U.S. health system and changing concepts of basic health quality. This analysis begins with a brief overview of the current structure of U.S. civil rights law in the context of racial and ethnic minority groups’ access to healthcare.

Healthcare is not immune to the deeply rooted inequalities in American society. To this day, racial and ethnic differences exist in the quality and outcomes of healthcare that cannot be attributed to socioeconomic or other healthcare access factors. Lawyers committed to social justice have long dedicated energy and attention to these continued disparities. As a lawyer litigating against segregation in healthcare facilities noted in 1966, “The treatment accorded Negroes by Southern medical facilities … reflects a striking contradiction between law and practice.” Past efforts to achieve equality in healthcare through civil rights litigation, education and local organizing have been effective to a degree, but have lost their influence in the current healthcare environment. In a renewed effort to achieve racial and ethnic equality in healthcare, some advocates are turning to quality as an indirect route to attaining this goal. The quality approach requires changing the traditional healthcare framework by incorporating new methods for achieving quality into every level of the system, including the patient level, the clinical level, the healthcare organization level and the governance level.