Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics最新文献

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.

This special edition of JLME celebrates the life of Charity Scott, Professor Emerita and Founding Director of the Center for Law, Health & Society at Georgia State University College of Law.

I applied to law school as a means to an end. To "fix the system," to make a difference, to advocate for meaningful change that improves health and well-being of others. Charity Scott accomplished, in her academic career, what I have not. At least thus far, I have chosen to follow a different path, dipping in and out of my original mission. Charity, by contrast, was focused and centered, never deviating from her integrity, purpose, kindness, advocacy, and brilliance. She gracefully married the intellectual enterprise of legal education with an unwavering mission to improve individual lives - of students, colleagues, clients, practitioners, and public servants. She was among pioneers in the health law field. She pioneered the medical-legal partnership model. She made a difference.

Women are the fastest-growing population of people who use drugs in the US. As a group, they are more likely than men to experience stigma, poverty, and negative mental health outcomes. This article discusses the unique needs of women drug users in the US and provides suggestions on how to leverage national attention - and federal funding - to make harm reduction services in the US more gender sensitive, and, as a result, more effective in reducing harm for women who use drugs in this country.

Medical legal partnerships address individual legal needs that can create impediments to health. Little is known about outcomes from medical legal partnerships and their relationship to access to justice. This paper reports outcomes from one medical legal partnership from the perspective of the client, with specific emphasis on impact on health and concepts related to access to justice. We suggest a conceptual model for incorporating medical legal partnerships into a broader framework about access to justice.

As a legal aid union president in New Haven, laboring within shouting distance of a different large research university, I recall how our membership rolled our eyes when Professors Greiner, Pattanayak, and Hennesy of Harvard published their study providing evidence, through a randomized control trial, that law clinic housing work made no difference for clients.¹ Representing, as I was, "lawyers, secretaries, and paralegals who have dedicated their careers to serving poor clients in crisis,"² the authors' conclusion generated first shock, then denial, and then an anxious realization that somebody's job was to research and disseminate such conclusions. In a 2013 United States where there was one legal aid lawyer for every 8,893 people who qualified,³ where federal Legal Services Corporation funding had dropped 40% over ten years in real dollars,⁴ and in an America that spends as much on Halloween costumes for its pets as it does legal aid for the poor,⁵ the inquiry felt like a pile-on. It made no more sense to us than asking if a teacher is "good for students," a nurse "good for the sick," or a chef "good for the hungry."⁶.

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.

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.

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.

Georgia State University College of Law Professor Emerita Charity Scott quoted these words from Albert Einstein in June of 2022 as she concluded a tribute to Professor Joseph (Jay) M. Healey, one of the founding lights of health law and health law teaching. She chose the quote because she thought the words and sentiment would resonate with Jay. I repeat it because Dr. Einstein's words capture the essence and heart of Charity's approach to teaching, pedagogy, and life. Charity modeled, urged, nudged, and taught the community of health law professors to embrace imagination and creativity. Charity's vision has helped us be more creative and reflective teachers.².