This special edition of JLME celebrates the life of Charity Scott, Professor Emerita and Founding Director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

It was a privilege to attend the symposium Defining Health Law for the Future, and join with so many of Georgia State University College of Law Professor Emerita Charity Scott’s colleagues and friends, supporters, former students, mentees, and presenters. It was a symposium that fittingly served as a tribute to Charity and the remarkable impact she had on the many communities she touched. To the Harrell/Scott family — thank you so much for helping us celebrate Charity and her work.

In 2006, the University of Maryland Carey School of Law had the privilege of co-hosting the annual Health Law Professors Conference with the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME). Coincidentally, as director of the Law & Health Care Program at Maryland, I had the opportunity to announce the winner of the Jay Healey Health Law Teachers’ Award at the conference. The award is given to “professors who have devoted a significant portion of their career to health law teaching and whose selection would honor Jay [Healey’s] legacy through their passion for teaching health law, their mentoring of students and/or other faculty and by their being an inspiration to colleagues and students.”1 Healey, a Professor in the Humanities Department at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine, was the youngest recipient of the Society’s Health Law Teachers’ Award, which he received in 1990. He was passionate about teaching and had the idea to devote a session each year at the annual conference to teaching health law. It was always a plenary session at which he challenged us to be better teachers. Jay died in 1993, at the age of 46, not long after the Health Law Teachers conference that year, which he attended and which also happened to be held in Baltimore at the University of Maryland School of Law. Thereafter, the award was given in his name.

Georgia State University College of Law Professor Emerita Charity Scott quoted these words from Albert Einstein in June of 2022 as she concluded a tribute to Professor Joseph (Jay) M. Healey, one of the founding lights of health law and health law teaching. She chose the quote because she thought the words and sentiment would resonate with Jay. I repeat it because Dr. Einstein’s words capture the essence and heart of Charity’s approach to teaching, pedagogy, and life. Charity modeled, urged, nudged, and taught the community of health law professors to embrace imagination and creativity. Charity’s vision has helped us be more creative and reflective teachers.2

This tribute compares Charity Scott to Fred Rogers, highlighting how Charity nurtured health law colleagues’ unique gifts and built community. Continuing the neighborhood theme, it highlights encouraging developments relating to health, housing, and place: Medicaid housing supports and potential reparations for redlining-related health inequities.

Balancing on a tightrope twenty feet above the ground is outside the comfort zones of many health law professors. Being there forces you to consider in new ways yourself, your skills, and your surroundings. Fears arise, and yet you must still act. And you must trust that the person who offered you this opportunity cared about you and your well-being, and that they would ensure there was a way to get from where you began to the other side.

Charity Scott brought health law to Georgia State College of Law in the fall of 1987. Through her faculty appointment, along with her boundless energy and intellectual curiosity, she set herself on an odyssey. She began by teaching a single general health law class. This beginning led to the development of a full curriculum in the field, complete with experiential learning opportunities and a certificate in health law program. In addition to creating learning and career opportunities in health law for law students, her development of the Center for Health, Law and Society created academic opportunities for leading health law faculty.

Few people in my memory have a name that more appropriately defines the life they have lived. “Charitable purpose” as defined in O.C.G.A. § 43-17-2 includes any charitable or benevolent purpose including health, education, or social welfare. Anyone who knew Charity Scott knows that she lived a life devoted to providing and improving the health of her community, the education of law students about health law and its use to improve the health of her community, and social welfare by addressing the socio-economic determinants of health. If she had not been assigned that name at birth, those of us who knew her could have easily assigned Charity as a nickname.

Law Schools are now required to provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism under ABA Standard 303(c). Law clinics, with their social justice orientation, have long taught about structural causes of bias and oppression and ways to intervene at system levels to prevent problems. Medical legal partnership (MLP) clinics have done so by employing concepts from social work and health science programs on structural competency. This article examines MLP and related curriculum to meet the ABA mandate.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) support patients and clinicians by streamlining legal and medical care and helping identify and address a subset of social drivers of health (SDOH). Less is known on the effect of MLPs on the competency of residents regarding SDOH. The aim of this study was to identify how integration of an MLP into a pediatric residency training program affected residents’ experience understanding and addressing SDOH.

Teaching students to build resilience is necessary to keep imagining and fighting for a path towards social justice. To do so, clinicians can draw from the communities facing oppression and examine how they remain resilient despite oppression.

I applied to law school as a means to an end. To “fix the system,” to make a difference, to advocate for meaningful change that improves health and well-being of others. Charity Scott accomplished, in her academic career, what I have not. At least thus far, I have chosen to follow a different path, dipping in and out of my original mission. Charity, by contrast, was focused and centered, never deviating from her integrity, purpose, kindness, advocacy, and brilliance. She gracefully married the intellectual enterprise of legal education with an unwavering mission to improve individual lives — of students, colleagues, clients, practitioners, and public servants. She was among pioneers in the health law field. She pioneered the medical-legal partnership model. She made a difference.

As Steve Kaminshine said in his comments at the symposium honoring Charity Scott, I was recruited to come to Georgia State University as a “Law and Bioethics” scholar who had spent more than sixteen years shuttling between an office in a hospital and another in a law school. But when I first visited Georgia State Law, I did not know that more than ten years earlier Charity Scott had spent the better part of an academic year living and breathing clinical ethics at Grady Memorial Hospital.1 Because of her usual habit of immersion in all learning experiences, in that year Charity gained more insight into how hospitals work and how physicians behave when they are knee deep in their professional milieu of life and death decision-making than many full-time bioethics academics do in a career. For the rest of her career Charity kept one foot well planted in the medical context, as an advisor in problems of research ethics, as a teacher in her own medical-legal partnership structured around real-life clinical problems, and as an ethical analyst who could never be accused of mouthing a mantra of phrases, the “vacuous incantation of abstract principles”2 that might pass for bioethics discourse in some circles.

Our paper examines what is required to protect and promote effective public discussion and policy development in the current climate of divisive disagreement about many public policy questions. We use abortion as a case example precisely because it is morally fraught. We first consider the changes made by Dobbs, as well as those which led up to the Dobbs decision, accompany it, and follow from it.

The authors consider the legal and ethical considerations of offering a time-limited trial of a potentially non-beneficial intervention in the setting of patient or surrogate requests to pursue aggressive treatment. The likelihood of an intervention’s success is rarely a zero-sum game, and an intervention’s risk-to-benefit ratio may be indiscernible without further information (often, a matter of time).

It is such a treat and a privilege to have been at the “Defining Health Law for the Future” symposium and to have met Charity’s family. She was dear to me.

This true story of a mediation in a personal injury lawsuit describes a sequence of events and fairly common practices that raise significant questions about mediation ethics as well as attorney ethics.

This article proposes ethical — and legal — accountability for lawyers representing clients such as private equity (PE) firms who create ownership structures for nursing home systems. Using PE ownership as a case study, I will show that nursing home residents are often harmed and Medicaid costs inflated. I propose private law provides tools to compel such accountability, through (1) aiding and abetting doctrines and (2) fiduciary doctrines that require that the fiduciary be responsible for its vulnerable beneficiaries, not just ethically but for damages and equitable relief. I further propose that the teaching of Professional Responsibility needs to be changed to force law students to consider the effect of legal practice on third parties in situations like health care financing.

Bigotry distractions are strategic invocations of racism, transphobia, or negative stigma toward other marginalized groups to shape political discourse. Although the vast majority of Americans agree on large policy issues ranging from reducing air pollution to prosecuting corporate crime, bigotry distractions divert attention from areas of agreement toward divisive identity issues. This article explores how the nefarious targeting of identity groups through bigotry distractions may be the tallest barrier to health reform, and social change more broadly. The discussion extends the literature on dog whistles, strategic racism, and scapegoating.