The development in 1996 of a new generation of antiretroviral drugs was a major pharmaceutical advancement in the struggle against the epidemics of HIV and AIDS. However, due to high costs, access to these new drugs was almost impossible for most people living with HIV or AIDS. This situatiowhas been even more dramatic for those living with HIV/AIDS in poorer countries. Many of the organizations that are fighting for the rights of those with HIV have since developed human rights advocacy and legal strategies to try to achieve universal access to treatment. These organizations are also fighting for states’ compliance with human rights obligations under health-related treatises and conventions. This paper draws upon the experience gained in Latin America, focusing on the legal strategies that have been explored in Venezuela and the legal consequences for domestic law.

The mission of public health is to assure the conditions in which people can be healthy and to reduce the occurrence of death and disability attributable to disease and injury. From the distinctive perspective of public health, the target is the health of the population as a whole, with a particular concern for vulnerable populations within the whole. Although public health is grounded in science, the mission and perspective of the field are shaped by the ever-evolving values of the society. Ethics and law are therefore constituent disciplines of public health policy and practice. One of the major challenges confronting contemporary practitioners of public health is the need to broaden and deepen their understanding of legal and ethical aspects of their work. This special issue of the Joumal of Law, Medicine & Ethics responds to this challenge. This article describes how the mission of public health has come to encompass the prevention and treatment of injury and highlights some of the political and ethical controversies now confronting the field.

Cigarette smoke is by far the leading preventable cause of death and disease in the United States. It has been estimated to kill between 419,000 and 589,000 smokers and up to 65,000 non-smokers each year. This premier status is hardly a new development, having been true for most of the last century, and known to be true at least since the first Surgeon General’s Report in 1964.

Why then are tobacco products exempt from any significant federal oversight or control? Why do cigarette advertisements, pitched to young smokers and non-smokers, continue to be plastered on every available surface inside and outside many convenience stores and to adorn the pages of popular magazines? Why, decades since the makers of far less dangerous products began to be held accountable in tort law, was the first payment by a cigarette company on a products liability judgment not made until 2001?

Medicine and its allied health sciences have for too long been peripherally involved in work on human rights. Fifty years ago, the door to greater involvement was opened by Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which underlined social and economic rights: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Genetics offers real opportunities for public health actors. Increased understanding of genetics will illuminate some of the factors that affect disease and, in many cases, will lead to more effective treatments. The recognition that phenylketonuria was caused by a metabolic defect that led to the accumulation of toxic levels of phenylalanine, an elevation that could largely be averted by adopting a low-phenylalanine diet, is an early example. Some cases of what was thought to be Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, a diagnosis used when no etiology is known, now appear to have been caused by metabolic defects in fatty acid oxidation and sodium channel defects. One of the tasks that has already been undertaken by the public health sector is to ensure that genomic information is incorporated into clinical care when the robusmess of findings and their clinical utility have been well defined.

Mounting evidence suggests that socioeconomic status is a determinant of health. As nations around the globe increasingly rely on market-based economies, the corporate sector has come to have a powerful influence on the socioeconomic gradient in most nations and hence upon the health status of their populations. At the same time, it has become more difficult for any one nation to influence corporate activities, given the increasing ease with which corporations relocate their operations from country to country, As a result of all of these factors, nations wishing to assure the health of their populations will need to both involve the corporate sector and cooperate with other nations.

In this article, we review the business ethics literature and consider what justification it might provide for requiring multinational corporations to attend to concerns about population health.

Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson suggested the need for a broader legal curriculum. As the twenty-first century begins, the practice of law will increasingly demand interdisciplinary knowledge and collaboration — between those trained in law and a broad range of scientific and technical fields, including engineering, biology, genetics, ethics, and the social sciences. The practice of public health law provides a model for both the substantive integration of law with science, and for the way its practitioners work. In addition, public health law also provides a model for interdisciphuy and integrative teaching.

Despite growing advances in medical technologies, health status inequalities continue to increase across the globe. Developing countries have been faced with declining expenditures in health and social services, increasing burdens posed by both communicable and non-communicable diseases, and economic systems poorly geared to fostering sustainable development for the poorest and most marginalized. Under such circumstances, the challenges facing health practitioners in countries in transition are complex and diverse, and require the balancing of many conflicting imperatives. This is particularly so in relation to the development of public health policy, where equity, redress of past inequalities, and the god of social justice may seemingly be pitted against macroeconomic adjustments required for national economic development in an increasingly globalized economic order.

For example, pressures to deregulate as part of a market-oriented development philosophy will increase the risks from occupational hazards in populations desperate for paid employment.

The practice of law has changed greatly since the days when judges based decisions on the maxim salus populi suprema lex, and Oliver Wendell Holmes disagreed, noting that “experience” has been the “life of the law.” In the intervening years, the profession has followed Holmes and the legal realists in recognizing that the law does not exist in a vacuum. It is a human endeavor, molded by experiences and filled with human consequences. Today, lawyers, jurists, and legal scholars everywhere on the political spectrum recognize the importance of social context, history, and a variety of non-legal disciplines, and non-legal insights to the intelligent practice of the law Unfortunately, in rejecting the old maxims, the legal profession also lost sight of the fundamental truth of salus populi suprema lex, Latin for “the health of the people is the highest law” - namely, it has lost sight of the truth that a population’s health is a critical part of law’s social context. One of the consequences of this is that the profession has failed to include public health - the study of the causes and prevention of disease, disability, and death in populations - among the non-legal disciplines regularly incorporated into legal analysis and routinely taught to all would-be lawyers. It is time to correct this oversight.

In our experience, public health practitioners (rather than scholars) seeking to address a health problem often have just two very basic questions about the law: (1) how can I use the law to create new interventions, or improve existing ones, to protect the public’s health; and (2) will the law prevent me from successfully implementing certain interventions? In this way, the law is seen as either an opportunity for intervention to affect a public health problem, or an obstacle to enacting or implementing a desired intervention.

In addition, because some public health practitioners may not fully understand the intricacies of a given legal area, some possible obstacles to intervention may be either real or perceived. A real legal obstacle is not necessarily an insurmountable one, but it does have genuine legal force. A perceived obstacle has little, if any, true legal application to a given kind of intervention.

Public health is concerned with how to improve the population’s health. At times, though, actions to improve the community’s health may collide with individual civil rights. For example, a public health response to a bioterrorism attack, such as smallpox, may require relaxing an individual’s due process protections to prevent the smallpox from spreading. This tension lies at the heart of public health policy. It also must be considered in discussing the concept of human rights in health.

Proponents of incorporating the concept of human rights in health emphasize the importance of both individual rights and collective rights. They argue that observing human rights is not only consistent with broad public health goals, but necessary to their attainment. To many human rights advocates, the concept is not limited to protecting against governmental intrusion. Accordingly, they emphasize the government’s obligation to promote attainment of human rights by, for instance, providing adequate health care.

In the past few years, there have been a number of high profile incidents that have emphasized the issues associated with financial conflicts of interest. As a result, commentators and policy-makers throughout the world have been directing their attention to how financial conflicts should be addressed. Despite such activity, however, there are few policies that provide specific guidance addressing one of the most common forms of financial conflict-the provision of generous remuneration packages to clinical investigators.

In this column, we explore the conflict of interest issues that flow from the pharmaceutical industry paying community physicians to be investigators in clinical drug trials. In particular, we are interested in the challenges associated with the management of this complex issue by local research ethics boards. We suggest the need for more research on this topic and specific guidelines to empower these boards to address this growing concern. We recognize that this is one of many current conflict issues faced by policy-makers today.

In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which required the enactment of new regulations to protect confidential patient health information. In December 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) published the agency's final rule on patient privacy and the proper use of privileged health information. The HIPAA privacy regulations cover all health-care providers that handle medical records or other identifiable patient health information. Most health-care organizations have until April 14,2003, to comply with HIPPA.

This article examines various methodologies used to measure implementation of human rights norms. As the above quotations demonstrate, society's need for measurement to evaluate progress and change over the centuries has not diminished. One of the purposes of measurement is to move human rights discourse beyond the aspirational, which has made achievement of these rights elusive, to an approach that makes them more concrete and practical through accurately testing the extent of their implementation. Measurement can simply involve the assignment of variable values - for example, numbers - to objects or events, such as law, according to rules. A link can then be provided between abstract concepts, such as human rights, to empirical indicants. This article aims to draw general principles to guide and make better use of measurement methodologies, such as statistical analysis and audits, in human rights areas generally, but with particular emphasis on the health area, especially HIV/AIDS.

While the importance of civil and political rights to health advocates is widely acknowledged, economic and social rights are not yet securely on advocates’ agenda. Health impact assessment is an approach that can promote an appreciation of their importance. This paper introduces health impact assessment, gives examples of how it is being used, links its development to a focus on inequalities in health status, indicates the insufficiency of civil and political rights to protect health, and shows that the use of health impact assessment draws attention to economic and social rights. While civil and political rights are an astonishing social achievement, they are not in themselves sufficient to promote health.

On January 22, 2002, California Governor Gray Davis released the state's long-anticipated, proposed regulations establishing hospital nurse-to-patient ratio requirements. The Safe Staffing Law (A.B. 394) mandating minimum ratios was enacted in October 1999 in response to legislators concerns that [q]uality of patient care is jeopardized because of staffing changes implemented in response to managed care. While the law was scheduled to take effect by January 1, 2002, conflict within the medical community regarding appropriate ratios slowed down the rulemaking process. Lawmakers now anticipate that the rule will be implemented by January 2003. Approximately 5,000 new nurses will need to be hired for California's hospitals to come into compliance with the proposed regulation.

The conference on Health, Law and Human Rights: Exploring the Connections held last fall in Philadelphia was a telling moment in the complex history of a movement — the “health and human rights movement” for want of a better term — inaugurated by the pioneering work of Jonathan Mann, whose memory the Conference honored. The François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights — founded by Mann and carrying on his legacy — was pleased to co-sponsor the conference. The conference and this symposium issue containing the main papers provide an excellent opportunity to take stock of that movement by means of a commentary based on the papers. This commentary is made from a resolutely human rights perspective, with the aim of engaging the authors in a dialogue on whether and to what extent each article advances knowledge about the interconnectedness and mutually reinforcing character of health and human rights, which is the lasting legacy of Jonathan Mann.

In NX v. Cabrini Medical Center, New York's highest court overruled a divided Appellate Division and held that, as a matter of law, a jury could find a hospital negligent for its failure to protect a patient from sexual assault. The court refused, however, to adopt a higher standard of tort liability for health-care providers who treat incapacitated patients.

In West Virginia, healthy smokers can now sue tobacco companies to require them to fund medical monitoring for health risks associated with smoking. In Blankenship, formally known as In re Tobacco Litigation (Medical Monitoring Case), the Circuit Court for Ohio County permitted a jury to decide the medical monitoring claim, despite the clam’s novelty and controversy. The unanimous jury refused to enforce the plaintiffs’ demands, and the court denied a motion for retrial. This trial was the second attempt of the class action lawsuit; the court had previously declared a mistrial when an attorney used the word “addiction” in front of the jury.

The court certified a class of residents of the state of West Virginia with more than a five “pack-year history” (at least one pack per day for five years) of smoking the defendant tobacco companies’ cigarettes, who did not have any of a list of named smoking-related illnesses, including various cancers and coronary heart disease, and who did not receive health care paid for – or reimbursed by – the state of West Virginia.