AMA journal of ethics最新文献

This case commentary considers unique features of medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) in the Veterans Health Administration that may potentially mediate and minimize ethical tensions that may arise in MLP collaborations involving diagnosing and documenting disability.

Undocumented people in the United States face innumerable legal and structural barriers to health and health care services, including for kidney failure. Their experiences vary across states and regions due to wide variation in insurance coverage and unreliable access to health-promoting resources, including medical-legal partnerships. This commentary on a case canvasses key policy about structural and legal determinants of health for undocumented persons.

Health justice as a movement incorporates research about how to more effectively leverage law, policy, and institutions to dismantle inequitable power distributions and accompanying patterns of marginalization that are root causes of health inequity. Legal advocacy is key to health justice because it addresses patients' health-harming legal needs in housing, public benefits, employment, education, immigration, domestic violence, and other areas of law. In medical-legal partnerships, lawyers and clinicians are uniquely positioned to jointly identify and remove legal barriers to patients' health, advocate for structural reform, and build community power.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are well suited to address health-harming legal needs associated with the collateral consequences of mass incarceration in the United States, such as those that limit access to food, housing, employment, and family reunification postrelease. MLP innovations seek to expand the current model to address patients' criminal, as well as postrelease, civil legal needs by including community health workers and some patients as legal partners and creating coalitions to promote local and state policy change. Overall, this article explains how these MLP innovations can support rights of people returning to communities after incarceration and can be leveraged to mitigate criminal legal system involvement.

The medical-legal partnership (MLP) and reproductive justice (RJ) movements both seek to solve complex problems, serve diverse populations with intersectional challenges, and resolve community conditions that impact people's ability to reach their highest health potential. Yet MLPs have been overlooked as a strategy to advance reproductive health and justice. MLP has distinct advantages for advancing RJ, and many MLPs might already be doing RJ work without referring to it by name. By intentionally adopting an RJ strategy and explicitly addressing the unmet social and legal needs that limit people's ability to plan their reproductive futures, MLPs can better serve their clients and contribute to the movement to combat reproductive oppression.

Medical-legal partnerships vary widely in how they are structured and use data to inform service delivery. Epidemiological data on certain chronic conditions' prevalence, the incidence of potentially preventable morbidity, and health-harming legal factors also influence approaches to care. This article draws on a pediatric example of how data-driven medical care complements data-driven legal care. This article also considers medical and public health ethical frameworks to guide protected information sharing, promote optimal service delivery, and achieve the best possible medical-legal outcomes.

Medical-legal partnership (MLP) integrates the unique expertise of lawyers into collaborative clinical environments. MLP teams meet the needs of individual patients while also detecting structural problems at the root of health inequities and advancing solutions at the institutional, community, and system levels. Yet MLPs today operate in limited settings and survive on scant budgets. Expanding their impact requires secure funding. Financing MLPs as health care can do the following: (1) help address inequity at the point of care; (2) enable expert diagnosis and treatment of nonmedical drivers of health; (3) enhance team-based practice in health care organizations; (4) offer another way for clinicians to participate in advocacy; and (5) bolster a broader movement to increase access to justice.

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) try to mitigate health inequity by uniting legal and health professionals to respond to legal determinants of patients' health. While there is a long tradition of "patients-to-policy" work in MLPs, the current empirical evidence base has evaluated MLP effectiveness by assessing benefits to individual patients, clinicians, and hospital and legal systems. This article calls for future research to measure how community power, which includes shifting power to impacted communities to develop and lead equity-focused agendas, is built as both a process and an outcome of MLPs.

Severe opioid withdrawal, risk of patient-initiated discharge, and some inpatients' use of unregulated substances prompt clinical and ethical questions considered in this commentary on a case. Short-acting opioids can be used to manage inpatients' pain and opioid use disorder (OUD) withdrawal symptoms. Including evidence-based interventions-such as naloxone kits, substance use equipment, and supervised consumption-in some inpatients' care plans may make those patients safer and reduce their risk of death. These and other strategies align with clinicians' ethical duties to minimize harms and maximize benefits for inpatients with OUD.