The end of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023, marked a pivotal shift in the landscape of telehealth regulation in the US. Kwan, Jolin, and Shachar analyze the implications of this transition by exposing inconsistencies in access to care. We agree that we now face a “convoluted patchwork of permanent and temporary changes to telehealth law and policy.”1

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.

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.

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.

This symposium Article describes how prison abolitionist arguments also support the hypothesis that a defining goal of health law should be the abolition of hospitals. Like prison abolitionism, the hospital abolition hypothesis can provide a constructive way to shift the focus of legal analysis from substantive dimensions (in health law — cost, quality, access, and equity) to the dimension of power.

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.

When skeletal dysplasias are suspected in the prenatal period, investigation, counseling, and management become especially challenging. By better understanding the complex forces at play and parental values, prenatal health care providers may improve the ways in which they counsel patients to improve the decision-making process under conditions of significant uncertainty, including in cases of prenatally suspected skeletal dysplasia.

It was a great privilege to know Professor Charity Scott. I first met her when I was finishing Emory University’s joint law and public health program in the early 2000s, through the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), in the early days of CDC’s Public Health Law Program, now the Office of Public Health Law Services. In those days, introductions were generous and frequent for excited students beginning their careers, but meeting Professor Scott made an impression on me. She was the first and only female health law professor in the field that I had the opportunity to know in the early years of my career.

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.

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.

Biosimilar drugs enter the United States market well after they enter the European market. That is likely because pharmaceutical companies have many more patents in the United States than in Europe. But why is patent coverage of biological drugs so much more extensive in United States? This case study seeks to answer this question for drug formulation patents.

In a “mixed bag” 2023-2024 session, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions both favorable and antithetical to public health and safety. Taking on tough constitutional issues implicating gun control, misinformation, and homelessness, the Court also avoided substantive reviews in favor of procedural dismissals in key cases involving reproductive rights and government censorship.

The Covid-19 pandemic elevated global attention to the complex problem of allocating and disseminating newly approved vaccines. Following early calls for vaccine equity,1 global health leaders made progress but struggled to fully realize distribution goals.2 With respect to vaccination rates, low and middle income countries have not achieved full parity with high income countries.3 In this issue, Harmon, Kholina, and Graham follow longstanding critiques of market-based vaccine procurement to propose “legal and practical solutions for realizing a new access to vaccines environment”4 that will, they suggest, further the goal of global health justice.

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.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) attempt to integrate the social determinants of health into health care delivery to eliminate health inequities. Yet, MLPs have not fully adapted to identify and address structural racism, one of the root causes of health inequities. This article provides a health justice perspective on the role of MLPs to challenge legal regimes to address structural racism and reimagine systems rooted in joy, safety, and collective liberation.

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.

Contemporary understanding of the mechanisms of disease increasingly points to examples of “genetic diseases” with an infectious component and of “infectious diseases” with a genetic component. Such blurred boundaries generate ethical, legal, and social issues and highlight historical contexts that must be examined when incorporating host genomic information into the prevention, outbreak control, and treatment of infectious diseases.

As the federal government continues to expand upon and improve its data sharing policies over the past 20 years, complex challenges remain. Our interviews with U.S. academic genetic researchers (n=23) found that the burden, translation, industry limitations, and consent structure of data sharing remain major governance challenges.

Over the past two decades there has been a rapid expansion in our understanding of how human genetic variability impacts susceptibility and severity of disease. Through applications of genome-wide association studies, genome and exome sequencing, researchers have made thousands of discoveries of genetic variants that impact risk of common and rare disorders affecting millions of people. Although these techniques have been primarily applied to highly prevalent chronic disorders such as diabetes1 and cardiovascular disease2, infectious diseases have proven to not be immune to genome-wide association, with studies of Tuberculosis3, HIV4 and SARS-CoV25, to name but a few, identifying host susceptibility loci across the genome. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infectious diseases have the unique element of impacting not only the affected the host, but those who may be most vulnerable to acquiring the infection. Thus, genetic variants that impact one individual’s susceptibility to and severity of an infection may also have broader implications to public health, as was brought into keen focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, as we begin to apply the knowledge gained from genomic studies in the clinic or into policy, there are unique ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) at the intersection of infectious diseases and human genomics. In this issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Jose et al attempt to address this need by proposing a research agenda for ELSI studies at what they term the “blurred boundaries” of infectious and genetic diseases.6

Vaccines are not the only public health tool, but they are critical in routine and emergency settings. Achieving optimal vaccination rates requires timely access to vaccines. However, we have persistently failed to secure, distribute, and administer vaccines in a timely, effective, and equitable manner despite an enduring rhetoric of global health equity.