Every September, millions of parents around the country herd their children into pediatricians’ offices with school immunization forms in hand. Their kids have already received a dozen or more shots before the age of two, and, depending on the state in which they live, a dozen more may await them over the ensuing decade. To protect public health, states require that parents have their children immunized before they are permitted to attend public or private school, but the rules vary for homeschooled children. With the spectacular growth in the number of homeschooled students, it is becoming more difficult to reach these youth to ensure that they are immunized at all. These children are frequently unvaccinated, leaving them open to infection by diseases that have been all but stamped out in the United States by immunization requirements. States should encourage parents to have their homeschooled students vaccinated by enacting the same laws that are used for public school students, enforcing current laws through neglect petitions, or requiring that children be immunized before participating in school-sponsored programs.

In addition to disability insurance purchased privately by individuals or employers, three other major types of disability insurance are available: Workers’ Compensation, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). The first two, Workers’ Compensation and SSDI, are available to individuals with work connections. The third, SSI, does not require a work connection.

Workers’ Compensation laws were initially passed to provide economic protection for workers and their families when a worker suffered an accident on the job resulting in an injury. The first laws passed were subject to court challenges based on their constitutionality. Ultimately courts approved the constitutionality of the Workers’ Compensation laws rationalizing that the laws created a compromise whereby an employee gave up her right to sue for a tort recovery in exchange for the employer's agreement to pay benefits without regard to the cause of the accident.

“Privacy considerations no longer arise out of particular individual problems; rather, they express conflicts affecting everyone.”

Along with the promise of assuaging the scourge of disease, the so-called genetic revolution unquestioningly imports a slew of thorny human rights issues that touch on matters such as dignity, disclosure, and the subject of this article – genetic testing and the social stigma potentially deriving therefrom.

It is now rather evident that certain otherwise therapeutically promising forms of research can inadvertently involve social risks exceeding the individual preoccupations of eclectic study participants. With that as the case, the following proposes to examine the peculiar stigma attached to genetic information and its potential human rights implications extending beyond the insurance and employment context. In so doing, it raises the intersection of interests between self-identified members of historically vulnerable groups and the group itself, which the law seems to take for granted in the genetics context.

This article explores a unique opportunity for shaping public health law and policy to reflect a greater balance between public and private goods in two areas of primary concern to human well-being: medicine and human biosecurity. This opportunity is presented both by the rapid changes likely to occur in these areas as a result of nanotechnology and the fact that multinational corporate actors have not yet had the opportunity to use their well-honed techniques of governance influence to modify public health policy and law in this area to their own narrowly focused advantage. Such a rare opportunity to rethink some fundamental assumptions about a regulatory framework for globally important health issues in advance is one reason why issues concerning nanotechnology regulation in medicine and human biosecurity should have considerable interest to health law and policy scholars.

Mounting evidence documents the extraordinary toll on human health resulting from the consumption of unhealthy food products and physical inactivity. Diseases related to poor nutrition – such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some cancers – are among the leading causes of disability and death in the United States. Poor diet and lack of exercise come second only to tobacco use in actual causes of preventable death in this country. It is estimated that 6% of all adult health care, 7% of Medicare, and 11% of Medicaid expenditures are attributable to obesity. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the direct medical cost associated with physical inactivity was nearly $76.6 billion in 2000.

In response to America's growing obesity problem, local policymakers have been looking for legal strategies to adopt in their communities to encourage healthful behaviors. Taking the lead from the successful tobacco control movement, nutrition advocates are seeking strategies to “denormalize” unhealthy behaviors, rather than pursuing education-based approaches that encourage individuals to change their own personal behavior.

The Canadian law governing informed consent was significantly influenced by the decision of its Supreme Court in Reibl v. Hughes, a case that involved a physician’s failure to warn the patient about the risk of stroke after carotid endarterectomy. Even though most Canadian plaintiffs after Reibl have continued to lose informed consent cases, it is likely that the judgement in this case has significantly influenced the manner in which physicians now approach the discussion of risk while obtaining consent not only in Canada but also in several other jurisdictions.

The development of informed consent law in the United States similarly became one of the drivers for change in physicians’ practices of information disclosure to their patients. The effect of Reibl on clinical practice is an outstanding example of the law’s positive influence on medical practice, especially in protecting patient autonomy during collaborative medical decision-making.

Childhood obesity continues to rise in the United States, with now over 17% of children and adolescents considered overweight. Childhood obesity predisposes an entire generation to increased risk of chronic diseases and disabilities and is a severe threat to the economic well-being of the nation. At first thought, the solution to the obesity epidemic may seem simple: encourage people to eat less and exercise more. However, the reality is that behavioral change is difficult to achieve without also considering the interplay of genetics, biological processes, and social and environmental mechanisms. As such, investment in obesity research has been considered an important tool to combat obesity and obesity-related diseases. Childhood obesity research, in particular, has drawn considerable attention, given the lower cost of prevention relative to treatment and the high potential for long-term benefits at a population level.

Multiple scholars and institutions have asked what distinguishes public health research from public health practice. Most often, they ask in order to have a clear definition of what one does in various public health settings to assess oversight and/or regulation of human subjects research. More importantly, however, whether something is considered public health research or public health practice has real ethical implications in terms of the general moral considerations at stake and the obligations of public health researchers/practitioners to the populations they serve or study.

Numerous examples in recent history of research ethics, including the Kennedy Krieger Lead Abatement Study and EPA’s Children’s Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS), suggest that an exploration of the ethics of public health, or more generally population-based research, may be warranted. Although we acknowledge that there are important ethical issues to consider in the implementation of public health practice, we leave that discussion for other authors.

This project focuses on the extent to which disability insurers should be allowed to use genetic information in underwriting and rate-setting, but this subject cannot be completely isolated from the related questions of whether life and health insurers should also have this discretion. Federal and state laws place significant restrictions on insurers’ use of genetic information in health insurance, but regulation of such use in life and disability insurance is considerably more modest. This essay examines the reasons for this disparity and discusses the implications for future proposals to regulate disability insurers’ use of genetic information in underwriting and rate-setting. The thesis is relatively simple: Communitarian values are stronger in health insurance than in life and disability insurance. Accordingly, the public is likely to acquiesce to insurers’ insistence that they be allowed to make distinctions among insureds in disability insurance (and life insurance) that would not be tolerated in health insurance.

The role of government in assuring population access to affordable and appropriate health care represents a central question for any nation. Of particular concern is access to prescription drug coverage, not only because of the vital role played by drugs in modern medicine, but also because of their high costs. This article examines the sharply contrasting prescription drug coverage and payment policies found in Australia and the U.S. – strong political allies and international trading partners – and describes how key U.S. interests have sought, through an aggressive trade agenda, to expand markets for U.S. goods and services, even when market expansions clash with other nations’ contrasting emphasis on social equity and fairness. Indeed, the nation’s bilateral free trade negotiations have brought the contours of this policy schism into sharp relief.

In recent years, scholars have begun to lay the groundwork to justify a distinct application of ethics to the field of public health. They have highlighted important features that differentiate public health ethics from bioethics, especially public health’s emphasis on population health rather than issues of individual health. Articulations of public health ethics also tend to emphasize the role of social justice compared to the predominance of autonomy in the bioethical literature. Now that the field of public health ethics is developing a unique focus and a language of its own, including a code of ethics disseminated by the American Public Health Association, the future of public health ethics may well be global health ethics, focusing on issues of global justice. As public health ethics evolves from its nascent stage of reflection to a place of action and application in the national and global arenas, two interrelated developments will need to occur: (1) public health professionals, including practitioners, policymakers, and scholars, will need a richer understanding of the ethical challenges practitioners face on a daily basis and (2) scholars will need to develop useful tools (i.e., frameworks) that practitioners may employ for identifying and tackling these ethical challenges.

In July of 2005, Indianapolis witnessed streaming headlines in the local newspaper attempting to distill the confusion surrounding the adoption of two premature infants by an adoptive parent. Thirteen articles and opinion pieces introduced the public to a murky legal and ethical transaction. Stating his overwhelming desire to have children, a New Jersey schoolteacher hired the services of a local attorney. The attorney procured a South Carolina woman for a compensated gestational surrogacy contract. Under the contract, the surrogate and the attorney would meet in Indiana to complete the execution of the contract and transfer parental rights via adoption after the birth of the twins.

The 2006 term of the United States Supreme Court is now well underway, and the results of the congressional mid-term elections are in. No doubt, decisions will be handed down and national legislation proposed – perhaps even enacted – that will directly or indirectly affect the physician-patient relationship as well as the profession of medicine itself. Of major concern to physicians, patients, and the lay public is the ongoing, rather contentious debate surrounding both patient access to adequate pain control and what constitutes proper physician conduct in treating patients who are experiencing either chronic or end stage disease pain. Those knowledgeable in palliative medicine maintain that an “epidemic of undertreated pain” now exists, and probably has existed for more than a decade. A significant number of patients experience unnecessary pain and suffering, and this disturbing phenomenon is both an individual patient care problem and a public health concern.