Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

Digitization in transplantation is not a new phenomenon. Algorithms are being used, for example, to allocate organs based on medical compatibility and priority criteria. However, digitization is accelerating as computer scientists and physicians increasingly develop and use machine learning (ML) models to obtain better predictions on the chances of a successful transplant. The objective of the article is to shed light on the potential threats to equitable access to organs allocated through algorithms, whether these are the consequence of political choices made upstream of digitization or of the algorithmic design, or are produced by self-learning algorithms. The article shows that achieving equitable access requires an overall vision of the algorithmic development process and that European legal norms only partially contribute to preventing harm and addressing equality in access to organs.

This paper explores the ethical challenges in deciding whether to vaccinate individuals lacking the decision-making capacity needed to provide informed consent during a public health emergency like COVID-19. The best interests standard ordinarily governs such decisions, which under the law in jurisdictions like England, Wales and Singapore takes into account the individual's past wishes and present preferences. However, in a public health emergency, the interests of third parties become more salient: those whom the unvaccinated individual might expose to infection have an interest in the individual's being vaccinated. While current mental capacity law has not been interpreted to take such public health considerations into account, we argue that such considerations are nevertheless ethically relevant, and can legitimately be weighed up alongside other considerations such as the preferences of the individual and impacts on their health. This is most relevant for individuals lacking decision-making capacity who have previously declined or presently resist vaccination. The public health impact of vaccination may in some instances be enough to outweigh preferences of the individual and justify providing vaccination against their past or present wishes.

Background: For gravely ill patients who have no treatment options and who are ineligible for clinical trials, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established the Expanded Access Program (EAP). Motivated by efforts to weaken FDA regulation and sold as providing greater access to experimental drugs, the federal Right to Try Act (RTT) was passed in 2017. It reduces FDA oversight by not requiring physicians to report safety data and foregoes approval of protocols by local institutional review boards.

Methods: This study explored the views of 17 neuro-oncologists from 15 different academic medical centers with varying experience with EAP and RTT using convenience sampling. We conducted semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis to identify emerging themes.

Results: Most oncologists were confused between the two pathways, had little familiarity with RTT, and had little knowledge about experimental medicine available through either pathway. Oncologists reported a preference of enrolling patients in clinical trials over off-trial preapproval pathways with scant data. As a result, oncologists revealed concerns over properly evaluating risks for their patients.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that neuro-oncologists need better resources and clearer mechanisms at their institutions to help navigate EAP and RTT in order to counsel patients interested in experimental medicine.

Considerable resources have been invested in research to identify pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants that cause morbidity and mortality and also in returning these results to patients. The public health impact and cost-effectiveness of these efforts are maximized when probands' relatives are informed of their risk and offered testing. However, such 'Traceback' cascade testing programs face multiple obstacles, including perceived or actual legal and regulatory hurdles. Here, using genetic cancer syndromes as a test case, we explore the contours of the Public Health Exception to the HIPAA Privacy Rule to assess whether it is a viable pathway for implementing a Traceback program. After examining the Privacy Rule as well as state laws and regulations for reportable conditions and genetic privacy, we conclude that this is not currently a viable approach for Traceback programs. We conclude by reflecting on ethical considerations of leveraging HIPAA's public health exception to disclose PHI directly to at-risk relatives and offering insights for how legal hurdles to such a Traceback program could be overcome, if desired.

Whether there should be restrictions for access to Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) is a matter of continuous medical, societal, and ethico-legal debate. One of the most controversial topics in this context is the use of parental age as a criterion to limit access to ART. Views are divided on whether there should be an upper age limit for one or both parents and on where such limits should be. Although this debate is centered around the issue of 'age' and although age-related limits are present in many legislations, the intrinsic ambiguity of the term `age' is largely overlooked. In this article, we build on gerontological, medical, and sociological literature on the concepts of 'age' and 'aging' to distinguish three conceptions of age that are relevant for ART regulation: the chronological, the biological, and the social-cultural one. Beyond mapping out these conceptions of age, we describe how they relate to ART and reproduction, and illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of relying on each of them as a basis for limiting ART access. Finally, we propose a template for defining legal age limits for ART access in the law, based on the refined understanding of the different conceptions of age that we outline and we discuss two potential objections to our proposal.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v Wade. Even before the final opinion issued, scholars and advocates had begun to consider legal strategies that might mitigate the decision's anticipated harmful consequences. One such strategy involves challenging state restrictions on Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved pregnancy termination drugs on preemption grounds. This article begins by exploring how these challenges might fare-considering both drug-specific restrictions and complete bans on abortion-arguing that there are compelling legal grounds on which courts should conclude that many state restrictions are preempted. Importantly, although these state restrictions have arisen within a larger debate about reproductive health care, this is far from the only area in which states seek to regulate prescription drugs. States have long regulated drugs in ways that diverge from FDA, arguably increasingly so in recent years. Accordingly, the article investigates the implications that preemption challenges in the abortion context may have for other areas of state drug regulation, making the case that the benefits of public health federalism need not be undermined by successful preemption challenges in the abortion arena.

As the adoption of digital health accelerates health research increasingly relies on large quantities of biomedical data. Research institutions scattered across a large number of jurisdictions collaborate in producing and analyzing biomedical big data. National data protection legislation, for its part, grows increasingly complex and localized. To respond to heterogeneous legal requirements arising in numerous jurisdictions, decentralized health consortia must develop scalable organizational and 6 technological arrangements that enable data flows across jurisdictional boundaries. In this article, proposals are made to enable health sector organisations to align established biomedical ethics process and data analysis practices to shifting data protection norms through both public law co-regulation, private law tools, and design-oriented approaches.

Biomodifying technologies-such as gene editing, induced pluripotent stem cells, and bioprinting-are being developed for a wide range of applications, from pest control to lab-grown meat. In medicine, regulators have responded to the challenge of evaluating modified 'natural' material as a therapeutic 'product' by introducing more flexible assessment schemes. Attempts have also been made to engage stakeholders across the globe on the acceptable parameters for these technologies, particularly in the case of gene editing. Regulatory flexibility and stakeholder engagement are important, but a broader perspective is also needed to respond to the potential disruption of biomodification. Our case-study technologies problematize basic ideas-such as 'nature', 'product', and 'donation'-that underpin the legal categories used to regulate biotechnology. Where such foundational concepts are rendered uncertain, a socially responsive and sustainable solution would involve exploring evolutions in these concepts across different societies. We suggest that the global observatory model is a good starting point for this 'Adaptive Societal Governance' approach, in which a self-organizing network of scholars and interested parties could carry out the multi-modal (meta)analyses needed to understand societal constructions of ideas inherent to our understanding of 'life'.