King v. Burwell And A Right To Health Care

Bill of Health contributor Gregory Curfman has a new piece up at the Health Affairs Blog discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell in the broader context of Americans’ right to care. From the piece:

Do Americans have a fundamental right to health care? This oft-debated question is timely given the Supreme Court’s stunning ruling yesterday in King v. Burwell, in which health insurance subsidies on the federal exchange were upheld in a 6-3 decision.

Here I will place the King v. Burwell opinion in the larger context of to what extent Americans are provided a right to care. The Constitution itself does not stipulate a general right to health care, but a patchwork of rights to certain aspects of health care have emerged over time from both constitutional and statutory law.

Read the full piece at the Health Affairs Blog!

Health Law Year in P/Review: Until Next Year

This new post by Holly F. Lynch, I. Glenn Cohen, and Gregory Curfman appears on the Health Affairs Blog as the final entry in a series stemming from the Third Annual Health Law Year in P/Review event held at Harvard Law School on Friday, January 30, 2015.

It’s been our great pleasure to collaborate with the Health Affairs Blog on this series stemming from theThird Annual Health Law Year in P/Review symposium at Harvard Law School. This annual event takes a look back over the prior year and previews the year to come with regard to hot topics in health law.

After the symposium, we asked our speakers to keep the conversation going online by expanding on their topics from different angles or by honing in on particularly intriguing features. These pieces were published on the Health Affairs Blog through the spring and into summer.

We heard more from Kevin Outterson on how to promote innovation in the development of new antibiotics, from Rachel Sachs on whether the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to regulate laboratory-developed tests will really stifle innovation, and from Claire Laporte on the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on bio-IP.

George Annas weighed in on the Ebola outbreak, which has already almost faded from public consciousness but offers important public health lessons, while Wendy Parmet and Andrew Sussman tackled important developments in tobacco control. […]

Read the full post here.

The Undue Burden Test in Texas Abortion Clinic Regulation

by John A. Robertson

[also published on Balkinization]

The Fifth Circuit decision in Whole Women’s Health v. Cole upholding Texas’ law requiring all abortions, including medication abortions, to be performed in a licensed ambulatory surgical center (ASC) by doctors with admitting privileges at nearby hospitals seems outrageous on several counts.  It defies a medical consensus that abortions performed in physician’s offices or licensed outpatient clinics are exceptionally safe.  With the risk of death less than 1% nationally and even lower in Texas, first trimester and many early second trimester abortions simply do not need the extensive sterility precautions and other operating room requirements needed for more invasive procedures. Indeed, colonoscopies, which have a higher morbidity and mortality rate, are permitted in non-ASC settings.

Nor does the admitting privilege requirement appreciably add to safety.  With hospitalists currently taking over care of most patients admitted to hospitals, the same doctor often does not provide both outpatient and hospital-based care, and emergency room doctors are trained to respond to any emergency.  Nor are admitting privileges necessarily an indication of a doctor’s clinical competence.  They are denied or awarded on many grounds unrelated to competency, i.e., likely frequency of future admissions, and thus do not usually impact the quality of outpatient care. Continue reading

Frozen Embryo Disputes and Unwanted Parenthood

By David Orentlicher

[cross-posted at HealthLawProfs blog and orentlicher.tumblr.com]

For the second time, a state court of appeals has given a woman permission to use frozen embryos over the objections of her former partner who supplied the sperm. In both cases, the new one from Illinois, the previous one from Pennsylvania, cancer chemotherapy left the women infertile and therefore unable to create new embryos with another man.

The results seem reasonable. As a general matter, courts have not been willing to impose unwanted parenthood on people who participate in the creation of frozen embryos via in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, when the frozen embryos provide the only chance for one of the embryo creators to have a genetically-related child, the desire of one person to have a child can trump the desire of the other person not to have a child. Continue reading

FDA’s Non-Response Response to My New York Times Op-Ed on Gay Blood Ban

On May 21, along with my frequent co-author Eli Adashi, I published an op-ed in the New York Times raising some questions about FDA’s proposed guidance recommending a ban on taking the blood on any man who has had sex with another man in the past year, or in other words imposing a one year celibacy requirement on gay men if they want to donate blood. This built on our critique last July in JAMA, wherein we argued that FDA’s then-lifetime ban on gay men and MSM donating blood was out of step with science and the practice of our peer countries, as well as potentially unconstitutional.

Thanks to our work, and a concerted effort by public health, medical, and gay rights groups, FDA has finally moved off of that prior policy and recognized that it was unjustified, and discriminatory.

Just to put this in context It took more than 30 years to convince FDA that it was problematic to ban blood donation for a lifetime any man who ever had sex with another man, even if both have repeatedly tested negative for HIV, while it imposed only a one year ban on people who had sex with individuals known to be HIV positive or a sex worker. FDA is appropriately a conservative agency, but on this issue of the lifetime ban its willingness to listen and reconsider has gone beyond conservatism to the point of lunacy. [By the way to be clear, I *love* FDA. I represented them while at the DOJ and have a new book coming out about FDA in the fall. You can think highly of an agency but think they have a bad track record on an issue. This is critique not hater-aide].

Well with that background, one should be not so quick to assume that a move to a one year ban — a de facto lifetime ban for any gay man who is sexually active, even one who is monogamously married with children — is the best policy. To put it bluntly, refusing to change a lifetime ban for such a long period makes me skeptical we should accept a “just trust us” line on their new restrictive policy.

The question we raised in our op-ed was whether FDA had adequately justified retaining a one year ban in light of the evidence from places like South Africa (with a much shorter time period ban), Italy (which does individualized risk assessment instead of stigmatizing all gay men as high risk for disease), etc.

Well FDA responded…sort of … through a NY TImes Letter To the Editor.

Here is what FDA said with my analysis in bold:

Continue reading

Surrogacy, Israel, and the Nepal Earthquake

The Nepal earthquake has shocked with the devastation and suffering inflicted on a long suffering people.  Foreigners in Nepal were also affected, but most of them will be able to leave and carry on their lives without the poverty, housing, and health care deficits the Nepalese will be dealing with for years.  One sub-group of foreigners were Israelis awaiting the birth of children carried by Nepalese surrogates or the legal papers needed to bring home those infants who had already been born.  They have, of course, no moral priority over others hit by the earthquake, but their situation shines yet another light on the complexities of national surrogacy policy and surrogacy tourism.

Nepal has become a major surrogacy destination for Israelis who because they are unmarried or gay cannot obtain surrogacy in Israel.  India and Thailand had been the prime choice for surrogates, but those countries two years ago restricted surrogacy to married couples.  Indian women already pregnant with children commissioned by unmarried persons then went to Nepal to give birth.   With surrogacy available in Nepal for $30,000-$50,000, rather than $150,000 in the United States, Israeli surrogacy agencies started arranging surrogacy births there, even while Indian rather than Nepalese women are usually the carriers. Continue reading

Fundraising and the Delayed Kidney Transplantation: A Loophole in the Ban against Commercialization?

In April, a kidney donation from an unrelated living donor was put on hold in South Portland, Maine. The reason was unusual: the generosity of the community.  In response to an online fundraising for the donor, 768 people contributed over $49,000—well beyond what can reasonably be called “compensation.” The hospital thus had to ask the question: Is the donation procedure in conflict with the law now that the donor stands to profit from it? After initial media coverage, there was no further news about this case. On Monday, however, it was announced on the fundraising page that the transplant is back on track and due to happen in two weeks. Does that mean that we now have a loophole in the ban against commercialization of organs?

The case is unprecedented. There are and have been other online fundraisers to compensate donors. But this is the first time that the unpredictable powers of the internet kicked in (remember the guy who raised $55,000 to make a potato salad?). The law prohibits any monetary payments to organ donors. The situation poses two questions: What should be done in this particular case, and how should fundraising for organ donors be regulated going forward?

It appears that the first question was somehow resolved even though we don’t know how: Did the hospital decide it was not a problem after all, or did the donor agree with the hospital’s reported initial suggestion of donating the “excess” money to some other organization? In either case, what follows remains problematic.

Continue reading

Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB): Call for Harvard Student Submissions

The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School collaborates with Stanford and Duke Universities to publish  the  Journal  of  Law  and  Biosciences  (Oxford University Press), an online, open-access, peer-reviewed journal. JLB includes a New Developments section, comprised  of  brief  summaries and commentary on recent legislation, regulation, and case law written by graduate students at the collaborating schools. The Petrie-­Flom Center is responsible for providing the New Developments for one issue per annual volume.

We are currently seeking Harvard graduate students to contribute papers to be published in JLB’s New Developments section in early 2016. In previous years, New Developments have been generated from scratch specifically for JLB, based on selection from submitted proposals. This year, we are taking a different approach by publishing already complete (or to-be-completed by the deadline) original student papers (such as student notes, course papers, etc.) written by graduate students from any Harvard school.  New Developments are limited to 5000 words, including footnotes and references,  and  should  be  on  a  topic  of  relevance  to  law  and  the  biosciences,  in particular a topic of relatively recent concern, controversy, or change. They should focus on  describing  the  issue  at  hand,  explaining  why  it  is  relevant  to  scholars  and practitioners, and providing analysis and questions for further consideration.

Interested students should submit their papers and CVs for consideration no later than September 7, 2015 (earlier  is  welcome). Up  to  four  papers will be selected for publication in the New Developments section of JLB. Applicants will be notified by the end of September. Selected students will receive comments on their papers by the end of October, and will also be responsible for providing comments to the other selected students. Revisions will be due by the end of November, and final submissions to JLB will be due by the end of December 2015.

Please send all application materials, and direct all questions, to Holly Fernandez Lynch, hlynch@law.harvard.edu.

The Ethics of Punking the Diet-Research Media Complex (and Millions of Readers)

ScaleA remarkable new “sting” of the “diet research-media complex” was just revealed. It tells us little we didn’t already know and has potentially caused a fair amount of damage, spread across millions of people. It does, however, offer an opportunity to explore the importance of prospective group review of non-consensual human subjects research—and the limits of IRBs applying the Common Rule in serving that function in contexts like this.

Journalist John Bohannon, two German reporters, a doctor and a statistician recruited 16 German subjects through Facebook into a three-week randomized controlled trial of diet and weight loss. One-third were told to follow a low-carb diet, one-third were told to cut carbs but add 1.5 ounces of dark chocolate (about 230 calories) per day, and one-third served as control subjects and were told to make no changes to their current diet. They were all given questionnaires and blood tests in advance to ensure they didn’t have diabetes, eating disorders, or other conditions that would make the study dangerous for them, and these tests were repeated after the study. They were each paid 150 Euros (~$163) for their trouble.

But it turns out that Bohannon, the good doctor (who had written a book about dietary pseudoscience), and their colleagues were not at all interested in studying diet. Instead, they wanted to show how easy it is for bad science to be published and reported by the media. The design of the diet trial was deliberately poor. It involved only a handful of subjects, had a poor balance of age and of men and women, and so on. But, through the magic of p-hacking, they managed several statistically significant results: eating chocolate accelerates weight loss and leads to healthier cholesterol levels and increased well-being. Continue reading

Check out the latest news from the Petrie-Flom Center!

pfc-web-logoCheck out the May 28th edition of the Petrie-Flom Center’s biweekly e-newsletter for the latest on events, affiliate news and scholarship, and job and fellowship opportunities in health law policy and bioethics.

Featured in this edition:

NEW EVENT!

glassesofwine_slidePetrie-Flom / Center for Bioethics Reception at ASLME 38th Annual Health Law Professors Conference

June 4, 2015 7:30 – 9:30 PM
Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark
1 South Broadway, St. Louis, MO

Come learn more about the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School at this jointly-hosted dessert reception at the 2015 annual ASLME Health Law Professors Conference.

We hope to see you there!

For more information, please contact Brooke Tempesta at Brooke_Tempesta@hms.harvard.edu.

For more on news and events at Petrie-Flom, see the full newsletter.

Petrie-Flom is hiring a new postdoctoral fellow in clinical research ethics!

PFC Logo-RGB-Round-Otlns-NewPetrie-Flom Center/Harvard Catalyst Fellow in Clinical Research Ethics

Job Description

This is a newly created full-time position for a post-doctoral employee fellow in clinical research ethics to support the work of the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School in its collaboration with the Regulatory Foundations, Ethics, and Law Program of Harvard Catalyst, Harvard’s Clinical and Translational Science Center. The fellow must have strong knowledge of clinical research and its regulation, with particular interest in the regulatory, ethical, and practical aspects associated with recruitment and retention of research participants.  The position will provide the opportunity to interact with a wide range of stakeholders, such as IRB members, administrators, investigators, institutional leadership, patient advocates, and other community members. This position allows for a maximum of 10% effort in furtherance of the fellow’s own research agenda(s) in related fields.  Illustrative projects include the following: Continue reading

New from Bioethicist Art Caplan: How State Right-To-Try Laws Create False Expectations

A new piece by David Farber, Preeya Noronha Pinto, Bill of Health contributor Arthur Caplan, and Alison Bateman-House the Health Affairs blog:

Over the past year, state Right-to-Try (RTT) laws that claim to enable terminally ill patients to access unapproved, experimental drugs, biologics, and devices have swept the nation. As of early May, seventeen states have enacted RTT laws (most recently, Florida and Minnesota), and bills creating such laws are currently pending in over twenty state legislatures.

Although these laws have created an expectation that terminally ill patients will be able to quickly access potentially life-saving treatments by being exempted from the rules of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this expectation is, quite simply, false.

Read the full article here.

Neuroethics Seminar Videos Available Online

In case you couldn’t attend in person, be sure to check out the videos from the Neuroethics Seminar series at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School! Topics include:

  • Hacking the Brain: Neuroenhancement with Noninvasive Brain Stimulation
  • Does Brain-Based Lie Detection Belong in American Courtrooms?
  • Does Brain Difference Affect Legal and Moral Responsibility?

View these videos and more here.

Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen: New Blood-Donor Policy, Same Gay Stigma

Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen has co-authored a new Op-Ed in the New York Times:

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration released highly anticipated draft recommendations that would allow gay men to donate blood after one year of celibacy. While an improvement from the current, highly criticized lifetime ban, the new policy, which was announced in December, still caters to fear and stigma rather than science. It should be reconsidered. […]

Read the full article here.

Rutgers Journal of Bioethics: Call for Papers (8/30)

From the Rutgers Journal of Bioethics:

As members of the Bioethics Society of Rutgers University, we hope to raise general awareness of issues in bioethics within the Rutgers community by method of discussion and publication. Although the beliefs and opinions regarding bioethical issues of this group are not unanimous, we are united by our ardent belief that the student population at Rutgers should be made aware of the implications of biological research, medicine, and other topics of bioethical controversy. In order to bring to light these issues, we are now accepting any papers that fall under the vast umbrella that is bioethics. All papers will be considered for possible publication. Some example subjects are medical treatment, biological warfare, research ethics, medical sociology, social justice, history of medicine/science, medical case analysis, eugenics, gene therapy, human cloning, medical malpractice, and healthcare policy; however, you are not limited to these topics.

DEADLINE: AUGUST 30, 2015

Continue reading

International Neuroethics Society Student Essay Contest: Deadline 5/20!

Remember to submit your 2000 word essay for consideration in the INS Student Essay Contest.  The top two submissions will be awarded:

  • $250 Michael Patterson Travel Stipend to attend the 2015 INS Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL (Oct 15-16), where there will be special networking opportunities,
  • One year free INS student membership,
  • Essay published in the Kopf Carrier (Newsletter of Kopf Instruments) as part of the “Neuroethics in Neuroscience Series” edited by Judy Illes (Director, National Core for Neuroethics, UBC),
  • Essay fast-tracked for peer-review if it (or a subsequent draft) is subsequently submitted to the American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience (AJOB-N); separate submission would be required.

Who can apply: All current post-secondary students of any nationality; a student is defined as anyone enrolled in a degree granting program (undergraduate, graduate, or professional) during the 2014-2015 academic year.

Requirements: Essays must be 2000 words or less, written in English, and double spaced.  Cover page and essay should be saved as a single file in the format “Surname_INS_Student_Essay_Prize.doc” and emailed to administrator@neuroethicssociety.org with the subject line: “INS Student Essay Prize”.  Additional requirements can be found on the INS website.

Selection Criteria: Essays will be judged on originality of argument, rigor of defense, and quality of prose; a short-list will be generated by the Student Essay Prize Judging Committee and the top two selected from the shortlist through forum discussion.

Deadline: 5 p.m. ET on May 20, 2015

Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation

Rubin's vase2I have a new law review article out, Two Cheers for Corporate Experimentation: The A/B Illusion and the Virtues of Data-Driven Innovation, arising out of last year’s terrific Silicon Flatirons annual tech/privacy conference at Colorado Law, the theme of which was “When Companies Study Their Customers.”

This article builds on, but goes well beyond, my prior work on the Facebook experiment in Wired (mostly a wonky regulatory explainer of the Common Rule and OHRP engagement guidance as applied to the Facebook-Cornell experiment, albeit with hints of things to come in later work) and Nature (a brief mostly-defense of the ethics of the experiment co-authored with 5 ethicists and signed by an additional 28, which was necessarily limited in breadth and depth by both space constraints and the need to achieve overlapping consensus).

Although I once again turn to the Facebook experiment as a case study (and also to new discussions of the OkCupid matching algorithm experiment and of 401(k) experiments), the new article aims at answering a much broader question than whether any particular experiment was legal or ethical. Continue reading

Bioethicist Art Caplan: A Potential Solution to the Shortage of Solid Organs for Transplantation

A new opinion piece by contributor Art Caplan along with Stephen Wall and Carolyn Plunkett, in JAMA:

In the United States, the majority of deaths occur unexpectedly, outside hospitals or in emergency departments. Rarely do these deaths provide opportunities for organ donation. In Europe, unexpected deaths provide substantial numbers of transplantable organs through uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (UDCDD). UDCDD considers decedents candidates for donation even when death is unexpected, regardless of location, as long as preservation begins after all life-sustaining efforts have been exhausted.

More than 124 000 patients are wait-listed for organs in the United States, a number that increases annually despite attrition from 10 500 who die or become too sick for transplantation.1 United States policy currently promotes organ recovery from 3 sources; neurologic deaths, controlled circulatory deaths, and live donors for kidneys and partial livers.

However, these approaches are incapable of meeting increasing US demand for transplants. During controlled donation after circulatory determination of death (CDCDD), the time from cessation of life support to circulatory arrest often exceeds 60 minutes. Prolonged hypotension leads to irreparable organ damage, thus limiting the effect of CDCDD on organ supply. Live donation primarily affects kidney supply; it is unlikely that altruistic donation will ever meet demand. Although many changes in public policy regarding cadaveric donation are debated (markets and presumed consent), none is likely to become law or make substantial differences in organ supply. […]

Read the full article here.

TODAY (5/8-9)! Law, Religion, and Health in America: 2015 Annual Conference

2015 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference
stethoscope_bible_slide“Law, Religion, and Health in America”
May 8-9, 2015
Wasserstein Hall
Milstein East ABC

Harvard Law School
1585 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA [Map]

Religion and medicine have historically gone hand in hand, but increasingly have come into conflict in the U.S. as health care has become both more secular and more heavily regulated.  Law has a dual role here, simultaneously generating conflict between religion and health care, for example through new coverage mandates or legally permissible medical interventions that violate religious norms, while also acting as a tool for religious accommodation and protection of conscience. 

This conference will identify the various ways in which law intersects with religion and health care in the United States, understand the role of law in creating or mediating conflict between religion and health care, and explore potential legal solutions to allow religion and health care to simultaneously flourish in a culturally diverse nation.

Highlights:

Keynote Lecture: Religious Liberty, Health Care, and the Culture Wars

 Plenary Session: The Contraceptives Coverage Mandate Litigation

The conference is free and open to the public, but seating is limited. View the full agenda and register online!

The 2015 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference, Law, Religion, and Health in America, is supported by the Oswald DeN. Cammann Fund.

TODAY! (5/7) After Hobby Lobby: What Is Caesar’s, What Is God’s? Pre-Conference Session

Pre-Conference Session

Hobby_Lobby_slide_270_174_85“After Hobby Lobby: What Is Caesar’s, What Is God’s?”
May 7, 2015, 4:00 – 6:00 PM
Wasserstein Hall, Milstein East BC
Harvard Law School,
1585 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA [Map]

As prelude to the 2015 Petrie-Flom Center Annual Conference, “Law, Religion, and Health in America,” please join us for a pre-conference session examining the role of religion in the American public sphere. Our expert panel will discuss the nature of conscience and conscientious objection, religious freedom, and religious accommodation from philosophical, theological, historical, legal, and political perspectives.

Panelists:

  • J. Dionne, Jr., Columnist, The Washington Post; Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
  • Diane L. Moore, Senior Lecturer on Religious Studies and Education and Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard Divinity School
  • Charles Fried, Beneficial Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
  • Frank Wolf, Representative, Virginia’s 10th Congressional District, U.S. House of Representatives, 1981-2015 (retired)
  • Moderator: Daniel Carpenter, Freed Professor of Government, Harvard University and Director, Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University
  • Moderator:  Glenn Cohen, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center

The panel will be followed by a light reception at 6 PM.

This event is free and open to the public, but seating is limitedRegister online.

The pre-conference session is co-sponsored by the Petrie-Flom Center and the Ambassador John L. Loeb, Jr. Initiative on Religious Freedom and Its Implications at the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University.