The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization made it drastically harder for women to access abortions. The Dobbs decision has had a disproportionate impact on women who are incarcerated or on some form of community supervision such as probation or parole. This Note analyzes a potential right to an abortion for women involved in the criminal justice system, even those living in states that have banned or deeply restricted abortion access after the Dobbs decision. In doing so, this Note looks for different constitutional avenues to protect incarcerated women’s right to an abortion, including under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Debates over the effectiveness, constitutionality, and fairness of medical malpractice damage caps are as old as the laws themselves. Though some courts have struck down damage caps under state constitutional provisions, the vast majority hesitate to invalidate malpractice reform legislation. Instead, statutory interpretation offers a non-constitutional method of challenging the broad scope of damage caps without fully invalidating legislative efforts to curtail “excessive” malpractice liability. This Note examines the term “health care providers” in construing malpractice reform laws and identifies two predominant forms of statutory interpretation that state courts apply. In doing so, this Note offers recommendations for courts and legislatures to best balance the goals of the malpractice reform movement with patients’ interests in recovery for medical injuries.

While physician-assisted suicide legislation is being drafted and passed across the United States, a gray-area continues to exist in regard to the legality of a lay person’s assistance with suicide. Several high-profile cases have been covered in the media, namely that of Michelle Carter in Massachusetts and William Melchert-Dinkel in Minnesota, but there is also a growing volume of anonymous pro-suicide materials online. Pro-suicide groups fly under the radar and claim to help those desiring to take their own lives. This paper aims to identify the point at which an individual or group can be held civilly or criminally liable for assisting suicide and discusses how the First Amendment can be used to shield authors from such liability.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is being tested and deployed in major hospitals to monitor patients, leading to improved health outcomes, lower costs, and time savings. This uptake is in its infancy, with new applications being considered. In this Article, the challenges of deploying AI in mental health wards are examined by reference to AI surveillance systems, suicide prediction and hospital administration. The examination highlights risks surrounding patient privacy, informed consent, and data considerations. Overall, these risks indicate that AI should only be used in a psychiatric ward after careful deliberation, caution, and ongoing reappraisal.

Most legal systems in the West allow for involuntary treatment of mental illness, usually on the basis that without such treatment the person would be a danger to themselves or others. While historically the mental health law jurisdiction has been a protective one, it has become increasingly influenced by civil rights and international human rights law, which privilege the value of autonomy and the right to personal liberty.

In this regard, an important principle that has developed is that decisions about treatment for mental illness must be the “least restrictive alternative” available. This may mean, for example, that a person is supported to make a decision on treatment for their mental illness, according to evolving practices of “supported decision-making,” so that their legal capacity is still recognized. If involuntary treatment is required, the “least restrictive” approach demands that the liberty and integrity of the person be respected to the greatest extent possible.

The Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) (“MHAQ”) prescribes that decision-making on non-consensual treatment should preferably be done according to what it calls the “less restrictive way.” However, the “less restrictive way” is defined as decision-making by patients under advance directives, and also by substitute decision-makers, including by attorneys or guardians not appointed by the patient, usually a family member. The MHAQ states that these arrangements are distinguished from and prioritized over what it calls “involuntary treatment and care,” where the decision for non-consensual treatment is made by the treating team.

However, we argue that these arrangements are not in fact “less restrictive” of the person’s autonomy, but are less accountable forms of decision-making. Decision-making by treating teams under involuntary treatment provisions is subject to higher levels of transparency and accountability. In Australian states these decisions are reviewed regularly by a specially constituted, independent mental health tribunal. By contrast, treatment decisions made under the “less restrictive way” are not even defined as constituting involuntary treatment, and are outside the scope of the tribunal’s review.

In the case of decision-making by advance directive, we acknowledge that this is widely considered to be “less restrictive” of a person’s right to legal capacity and autonomy. However, in these cases, the patient may actually be refusing treatment at the time the advance directive is relied upon. This raises serious questions as to whether such “voluntary” admissions and treatment should not be subject to the same oversight and accountability as involuntary ones. Patients have a right to less restrictive forms of decision-making, but when deprived of their liberty, they also have a right to adequate safeguards established by law.

The term “less restrictive” in the MHAQ is largely misplaced and misleading. In the case of advance directives, it deflects attention from the potentially restrictive nature of the treatment and the lack of accountability. Even more problematically, the privileging of private substitute decision-making under the less restrictive way ignores the real risk of abuse and undue influence within the personal and family sphere. We argue that the “less restrictive way” under the MHAQ is a step backwards for the rights of patients, in that it shifts power to family on the risky assumption that decision-making by these less supervised individuals is more likely to uphold human rights. We believe that this reflects a pre-feminist assumption that the informal, family, private sphere is nearly always safe. This is a contentious assumption, which nevertheless underpins much unproblematized thinking and advocacy on supported decision-making. This issue also highlights the need for further elucidation and discussion on what least restrictive means in the context of involuntary treatment for mental illness.

A recent Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that TikTok floods child and adolescent users with videos of rapid weight loss methods, including tips on how to consume less than 300 calories a day and promoting a “corpse bride diet,” showing emaciated girls with protruding bones. The investigation involved the creation of a dozen automated accounts registered as 13-year-olds and revealed that TikTok algorithms fed adolescents tens of thousands of weight-loss videos within just a few weeks of joining the platform. Emerging research indicates that these practices extend well beyond TikTok to other social media platforms that engage millions of U.S. youth on a daily basis.

Social media algorithms that push extreme content to vulnerable youth are linked to an increase in mental health problems for adolescents, including poor body image, eating disorders, and suicidality. Policy measures must be taken to curb this harmful practice. The Strategic Training Initiative for the Prevention of Eating Disorders (STRIPED), a research program based at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Boston Children’s Hospital, has assembled a diverse team of scholars, including experts in public health, neuroscience, health economics, and law with specialization in First Amendment law, to study the harmful effects of social media algorithms, identify the economic incentives that drive social media companies to use them, and develop strategies that can be pursued to regulate social media platforms’ use of algorithms. For our study, we have examined a critical mass of public health and neuroscience research demonstrating mental health harms to youth. We have conducted a groundbreaking economic study showing nearly $11 billion in advertising revenue is generated annually by social media platforms through advertisements targeted at users 0 to 17 years old, thus incentivizing platforms to continue their harmful practices. We have also examined legal strategies to address the regulation of social media platforms by conducting reviews of federal and state legal precedent and consulting with stakeholders in business regulation, technology, and federal and state government.

While nationally the issue is being scrutinized by Congress and the Federal Trade Commission, quicker and more effective legal strategies that would survive constitutional scrutiny may be implemented by states, such as the Age Appropriate Design Code Act recently adopted in California, which sets standards that online services likely to be accessed by children must follow. Another avenue for regulation may be through states mandating that social media platforms submit to algorithm risk audits conducted by independent third parties and publicly disclose the results. Furthermore, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which has long shielded social media platforms from liability for wrongful acts, may be circumvented if it is proven that social media companies share advertising revenues with content providers posting illegal or harmful content.

Our research team’s public health and economic findings combined with our legal analysis and resulting recommendations, provide innovative and viable policy actions that state lawmakers and attorneys general can take to protect youth from the harms of dangerous social media algorithms.

Dementia within the criminal system, from arrest through incarceration, has been largely ignored. While the health system has begun grappling with the chronic conditions that will accompany an aging society, the criminal system has yet to meaningfully respond. Dementia is a clinical syndrome characterized by impairment in cognitive domains (memory, executive function, visuospatial). Additionally, dementia often includes behavioral symptoms that increase the likelihood that an individual’s actions may violate social norms and in some circumstances be deemed criminal. Prior studies have established criminal behavior as a trend among individuals living with dementia. Yet, the criminal system has yet to establish protections for individuals who commit a crime while impaired by dementia. This paper will report on an empirical study to evaluate the treatment of persons with dementia within the criminal justice system. We will report on interviews with attorneys (n=15) regarding their experience and perspective on the treatment of persons with dementia post-arrest. In the paper, we will explore topics identified through these interviews including pre-trial release, competency, placement (housing), criminal liability determination, sentencing, and post-conviction release. We will highlight key findings including the lack of a systematic screening process for dementia post-arrest, placement is a significant challenge, attorneys’ lack of training on dementia to be able to understand how the disease could impact decision-making, and the two legal mechanisms available to divert miss the mark given their focus on psychiatric populations. We will use these data and findings to argue for a research and policy agenda to address a gap in legal policies to appropriately manage persons with dementia post-arrest.

Many insurers exclude coverage for transgender individuals. Litigation challenging these exclusions has increased. Most of these cases successfully advance equality claims by arguing that trans exclusions discriminate based on sex. That is, procedures performed on patients for reasons unrelated to gender affirming care are being denied to transgender individuals. There are, however, limitations to this argument. First, some courts may construe care narrowly and hold that some procedures are unique to gender affirming care that have no analog in other contexts. Second, a court that is hostile to the sex discrimination argument might hold that the denial does not arise from sex discrimination, but rather, because of the kind of diagnosis at issue. Further, the sex discrimination argument might force transgender individuals into making claims based on a binarized gender identity which may not conform with their lived experience.

Claims based on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) can address these shortcomings. This Act prohibits insurers from discriminating against mental health diagnoses—for example, procedures that insurers cover because of medical or surgical diagnoses should also be covered if indicated for mental health diagnoses. Gender dysphoria is a recognized mental health diagnosis. Transgender individuals seeking gender affirming care arising from gender dysphoria can thus claim that exclusions of coverage violate the MHPAEA. Some transgender individuals might raise concerns that such an approach would lead to increased medicalization of trans identity. However, an MHPAEA claim would only appear in cases where a transgender individual is voluntarily submitting themselves to medical assistance in order to advance their own autonomy.

This Article seeks to synthesize academic research on home healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand how their workplace challenges were magnified. Crisis communication researchers note that a crisis provides both opportunities and threats for growth. This Article argues that many of the issues that have impacted home healthcare workers have always been present, but the pandemic allows policy makers the ability to see them clearly because the pandemic brought a spotlight to the issues that home healthcare workers face on a daily basis. Consequently, the author employed a narrative analysis of the literature concerning home healthcare workers during the pandemic to understand how the pandemic exacerbated structural issues that led to an increase in mental health difficulties for this population. By understanding how the pandemic exacerbated mental health issues, policy makers can craft solutions that can withstand the next public health crisis which will undoubtedly impact the most disenfranchised.

This Article analyzes the 2021 judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab. The case has garnered significant local and international attention due to the Court’s ruling that a death sentence may not be carried out on a defendant who has a mental illness. Setting the case against the backdrop of Pakistan’s Islamic and colonial contexts, this article argues that the Supreme Court has reshaped the insanity defense in Pakistani law by placing the determination of a defendant’s mental state mainly in the hands of medical professionals. However, the Court’s reliance on medical professionals and the subsequent downplaying of the “moral capacity” element of the insanity defense—a determination of law made by courts—has created an obstacle for courts to punish offenders more stringently in future cases due to the popular belief that mental health professionals are ill-equipped to answer broader questions of justice for victims and society. The article recommends that this issue can be remedied by establishing an objective legal test for insanity that considers Islamic law, Pakistani precedent, and advances in medical science.

Suicide is one of the most common causes of death among individuals younger than eighteen years old. While psychological and social sciences continue to study the causes of the increasing prevalence of suicide in children and teens, the law largely continues to treat suicide as an isolated event. This Note tracks the historical treatment of suicide both under tort and criminal law, supporting the shift away from the traditional view of suicide towards one that more closely aligns with the growing understanding of the many factors that can contribute to a minor’s suicide. Ultimately, this Note argues that many minor suicides should be treated as foreseeable, allowing actions in tort.

This Article focuses on unifying the protocol for state competency evaluations, but with special concerns about undiagnosed FASD and developmental immaturity in adolescents. States do not mandate any process whereby psychometric tests are first performed prior to psychiatric mental status evaluations, often causing disparities in evaluations which might easily be avoided in court proceedings. Adding to the complications in current competency evaluations are recent studies from Canada and Australia identifying exceptionally high rates of FASD in incarcerated adolescents following multi-disciplinary teams’ studies directed at identifying FASD. If these studies’ rates of FASD turn out to be similar for children in the U.S. juvenile justice system, then systemic reform is called for as we are failing to identify this congenital condition when adolescents enter the system and then continue on into the adult criminal system without recognition of their prenatal exposure to alcohol.

This RCD discusses the recent development in Lange v Houston County. In this case, the United States District Court for The Middle District Of Georgia Macon Division found that an Exclusion Policy, prohibiting health insurance coverage of gender-affirming surgery for an employee, Anna Lange, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On appeal, the Defendants argued that the District Court erred in its decision and relied on the cost burden of gender-affirming surgery as one of their defenses. This RCD highlights that cost is a common defense tactic used by defendants in these cases. However, the author argues that these concerns are unfounded and meritless given the cost-effectiveness of including gender-affirming surgeries in health insurance plans, as highlighted in the RCD.

This RCD analyzes the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent answer to two certified questions sent to the court from the Eleventh Circuit. The questions involved whether a pharmaceutical company’s duty to warn included a duty to provide instructions about how to properly mitigate for warned of risks, and if the pharmaceutical company had such a duty could a plaintiff recover if their physician would have prescribed the same drug but just changed their monitoring scheme. The Alabama Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, expanding the causation standard in failure to warn claims.

This article discusses how in March of 2023 a District Court in Texas enjoined the U.S. government from enforcing certain preventive care requirements under the ACA for private health insurers. The current order by the Court enjoined enforcement of the ACA preventive care requirements based on those recommendations made on or after the date of March 23, 2010, by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This article discusses the Court’s analysis and the remedy the Court decided on after finding violations under the RFRA and Appointments Clause. The article also discusses the implications and effects of this decision on whether previously covered services that the ACA didn’t allow cost sharing for will now have cost sharing by private health insurers and how that will affect consumers. The article concludes that despite lack of enforcement, private health insurers should not require cost sharing for previously covered services that the ACA didn’t allow cost sharing for before this most recent decision. Cost sharing for previously covered services would increase costs for those enrolled in private health insurance plans and could lead to a reduction in access to preventive services and healthcare.

This Note examines the effects of Title IX’s equal treatment framework on female collegiate athletes in the context of the female athlete triad. It describes the shortcomings of Title IX’s equal treatment approach and its deleterious effects on the health of female student athletes. It argues for the adoption of the special treatment approach as a remedy.

During the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials exercised their police powers to combat the spread of the virus. The pandemic-related legal interventions adopted throughout the United States included lockdown orders and mask mandates. However, these policies and interventions meant to promote the general welfare of the public, in defense of common good, were met with legal challenges, especially in opposition to interventions’ impact on the exercise of religion. This article provides a legal analysis of the policies meant to curb the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on legislative and judiciary actions and their implications for religious freedom. Ultimately, we hope this article will help inform future legal analyses on conflicts between public health and religious freedom in the context of pandemic legal preparedness efforts.

The power afforded to the administrative state is heavily reliant on public trust and the perception of evidence-based agency decision-making. Organizational reputation is key to preserving regulatory power. However, recent investigations reveal that existing scientific integrity policies may not be sufficient to preserve the credibility of many federal agencies. In fact, a significant number of career scientists across various entities – including the FDA – have observed unreported incidents of political interference. While political influence exerted by the executive branch to set policy goals and determine agency priorities can be beneficial, political pressures must not undermine public trust in scientific agencies. Recently, public perception regarding the FDA’s COVID-19 response threatened to weaken the agency’s longstanding reputation as the gold standard of review. The COVID-19 pandemic publicized vulnerabilities that exist across agencies, as well as those that are unique to the FDA. The FDA’s evolution as an increasingly public health-focused agency that must function in the landscape of politicized science exposes the agency to a greater risk of political interference. After all, the FDA’s involvement in public health requires increased participation in non-ideal, value-based decision-making. Throughout its history, the FDA has managed to maintain its reputation through its firm responses to scandal. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a platform for the FDA to – once again – look introspectively and institute safeguards addressing vulnerabilities that plagued the agency’s pandemic response. This Article examines the FDA’s early COVID-19 response to propose reforms that promote meaningful transparency, public accountability, and scientific integrity.

Synthetic biology is an emerging, interdisciplinary research field with much promise for biomedicine. Broadly defined as “the design and construction of new biological systems to perform specific tasks,” researchers and clinicians are using synthetic biology to develop targeted treatments for cancer, coronaviruses, and so forth. Because of the experimental nature of synthetic biology, regulation is necessary. Current federal frameworks, such as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, The Toxic Substances Act of 1976, Institutional Review Boards, and self-regulation are not enough. As a result, states have a unique opportunity to develop statutory and regulatory frameworks to develop a pathway for regulating synthetic biology. In developing legislation, state lawmakers should look to build a comprehensive framework that addresses businesses selling technology for synthesizing DNA codes, monitors orders for synthetic DNA, and develops statewide documentation systems. Additionally, public health information on treatments using synthetic biology can help to educate the public and reduce the prevalence of misconceptions about the technology. In the absence of federal regulation, states should step into the synthetic biology regulatory space to ensure that their citizens are not harmed by therapies developed using synthetic biology.