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.

Due to their financial incentive, clinicians who earn income from a firm that markets medical devices, pharmaceuticals, tests, etc. might inappropriately prescribe their products or services. The Cleveland Clinic’s conflict of interest (CI) policy creates rules governing clinicians who accept compensation from outside firms that market products they prescribe or use in their practice (hereafter, covered financial relationships). The CI policy is implemented by the Innovation Management and Conflict of Interest Program (IM&COI) (hereafter the Committee).

A deluge of state “anti-equity” legislative bills seek to reverse prevailing trends in diversity, equity, and inclusion; withdraw protections of LGBTQ+ communities; and deny access to gender-based care for trans minors and adults. While the political and constitutional fate of these acts is undetermined, profound impacts on patients and their providers are already affecting the delivery of health care and public health services.

Normothermic Regional Perfusion, or NRP, is a method of donated organ reperfusion using cardiopulmonary bypass or a modified extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit after circulatory death while leaving organs in the dead donor’s corpse. Despite its potential, several key ethical issues remain unaddressed by this technology.

Neither the individualistic regulatory health paradigm nor the vulnerable populations approach of public health can provide the legal structure necessary to address the most pressing problems in health care today. These approaches fail to address conflicts between individuals and populations as well as challenges to qualifying for care and are in inherent conflict with each other, sometimes within the same statute. As health concerns become more global, it is necessary to move past a vulnerable populations approach to a broader population approach that respects individual choice but does not sacrifice community health for liberty interests.

This article proposes building on the success of publicly funded drug research and development and expanding the model to include the full cycle development, testing, manufacture and distribution of innovative and affordable new drugs.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst to build a stronger European Health Union to protect the health of Europeans and to develop a new Global Health Strategy to contribute to global health security. In positioning itself as a key player in global health governance, the EU seeks to assert its responsibility as a global health actor and deepen its leadership in global health law.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists are effective for treating obesity, but the high cost of these medications endangers the financial viability of our health care system. To ensure that these drugs are available to Medicare beneficiaries, pharmaceutical manufacturers must lower their prices.

This is how Georgia State University College of Law Professor Charity Scott introduced the concept of mindfulness to numerous law students and lawyers. Aware that her skeptical, mind-driven audience needed a clear definition for a practice that seemed curious, at best, and esoteric, at worst, she immediately gave us the very lawyerly task of “pars[ing] each of these phrases to understand their importance and relevance to the legal profession”2 and applying them to our own experience of studying or practicing law. Using scientific evidence, she described the benefits of mindfulness and then invited us to try it and decide for ourselves. Charity was a superb teacher, who knew how to impart knowledge skillfully, and a brilliant lawyer, who could present and defend her case exceptionally well. In fact, “Charity Scott owned the subject matter so deeply that she was able to engage lawyers who otherwise would never have given the concept of mindfulness any credence in a million years. In a way that’s hard to describe, she didn’t brook any resistance on the topic and, as a result, was able to move the needle on well-being for lawyers at a time when, as far as I can tell, she was the only one doing the lifting,” reflects Lynn Garson, health care attorney and mental health advocate. But I believe Charity Scott’s true mastery and impact came from her embodiment of mindfulness itself. In her presence, mindfulness ceased to be a mere concept, but instead became her way of being that illuminated her words and actions, nourished her relationships, and changed lives.

Following from sweeping law reforms across the global health landscape, there is a need to prepare the next generation to advance global health law to ensure justice for a healthier world. Educational programs across disciplines have increasingly incorporated the field of global health law, with new courses examining the law and policy frameworks that apply to the new set of public health threats, non-state actors, and regulatory instruments that structure global health. Such interdisciplinary training must be expanded throughout the world to prepare future practitioners to strengthen global health law — ensuring a foundation for global health in legal studies and law and global health studies. Meeting this imperative for global health law teaching — establishing academic courses and textbooks on global legal responses to shared health threats — will be necessary to support students to address the global health challenges of the future.

Charity Scott was a professor of health law at Georgia State University College of Law, the founding director of the College of Law’s Center for Law, Health, and Society, and co-founder of the Health Law Partnership (HeLP) at Georgia State. She is an iconic figure in her adopted hometown of Atlanta and certainly one of the most important scholars in the history of the health law field, justly celebrated for her teaching, her innovation, her commitment to interdisciplinary work, and for her compassion and love for others. She was also a dear friend of mine. In this short essay I will reflect on my friendship with Charity and her involvement with the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, the publisher of this journal.

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.

This Paper argues that to protect at-risk communities — and all Americans — from the deadly effects of environmental racism, Congress must pass the Environmental Justice for All Act. The Act is intended to “restore, reaffirm, and reconcile environmental justice and civil rights.” It does so by restoring an individual’s right to sue in federal court for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or national origin regardless of intent under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, strengthening the National Environmental Policy Act, and providing economic incentives focused on environmental justice.