Should litigants in products liability or other litigation be able to subpoena data from clinical trials to help prove their case? Does it matter whether the clinical trial is ongoing, finished recruiting but still analyzing data, or published? Michelle Mello and I have an invited commentary on this issue in JAMA Internal Medicine “Clinical Trials and the Right to Remain Silent” with our analysis and recommendations. We are discussing a real case from Yale where a subpoena was sought for data from a placebo-controlled trial of pioglitazone conducted there, where the person seeking the data had sued the manufacturer and believed she had been injured by pioglitazone but was not a clinical trial participant. In the same issue of JAMA IM, Yale gives its own account about how it handled the case here. Dr. Kernan (the investigator) and I also have a nice interview podcast on the issue.
I have a new article in JAMA this week, “Reconsideration of the Lifetime Ban on Blood Donation by Men Who Have Sex With Men,” co-authored with my former student Jeremy Feigenbaum and my frequent co-author Dr. Eli Adashi (former Dean of Medicine at Brown). In the article we show that FDA’s current policy is morally, ethically, and legally problematic. We are out of step with our peer countries (including the UK, Canada, South Africa) who do delay when men who have sex with men can give blood but not for a lifetime, the way the U.S. does. It is remarkable that if you have sex with a female prostitute or a woman who is HIV+ you face only a 12-month deferral in the U.S. but if you have had sex with a man, just once, ever, no matter his HIV status you face a lifetime delay.
We are in a world where the Defense of Marriage Act was struck down as unconstitutional, where Don’t Ask Don’t Tell has been struck down so that gay men and lesbians can proudly serve their country and shed blood (their own, others) on the battlefield. It is time to change a 30-yr old policy prohibiting them giving blood. What’s more, given the the Windsor decision and the recent Ninth Circuit application of heightened scrutiny to the exclusion of gay jurors for jury duty, we think there are serious constitutional questions about FDA’s policy as well.
My preferred approach, and the one I think FDA should move towards, is the Italian “test and assess” which has no blanket classification of MSM but instead does individualized risk assessment. As we describe in our paper thus far has not increased the risk of HIV+ blood making its way into the blood supply.
The Williams Institute in 2010 estimated that 6% of men had at least once had sex with another man, meaning there are potentially 7.2 million men who could become blood donors but are excluded by FDA’s rule. We owe it not only to these men, but also to all those who could benefit from their blood donations to revisit this rule.
The Petrie-Flom Center is pleased to announce publication of Human Subjects Research Regulation: Perspectives on the Future (MIT Press 2014), co-edited by Petrie-Flom Center Faculty Director, I. Glenn Cohen, and Executive Director, Holly Fernandez Lynch. This edited volume stems from the Center’s 2012 annual conference, which brought together leading experts in a conversation about whether and how the current system of human subjects research regulation in the U.S. ought to change to fit evolving trends, fill substantial gaps, and respond to identified shortcomings.
The book is currently available from MIT Press and Amazon, in hardcover and paperback. We will be hosting a book discussion at Harvard Law School on October 22, and in Baltimore on December 5 at Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIMR)’s annual Advancing Ethical Research Conference. Details will be announced shortly.
From the book jacket:
The current framework for the regulation of human subjects research emerged largely in reaction to the horrors of Nazi human experimentation, revealed at the Nuremburg trials, and the Tuskegee syphilis study, conducted by U.S. government researchers from 1932 to 1972. This framework, combining elements of paternalism with efforts to preserve individual autonomy, has remained fundamentally unchanged for decades. Yet, as this book documents, it has significant flaws—including its potential to burden important research, overprotect some subjects and inadequately protect others, generate inconsistent results, and lag behind developments in how research is conducted. Invigorated by the U.S. government’s first steps toward change in over twenty years, Human Subjects Research Regulation brings together the leading thinkers in this field from ethics, law, medicine, and public policy to discuss how to make the system better. The result is a collection of novel ideas—some incremental, some radical—for the future of research oversight and human subject protection.
After reviewing the history of U.S. research regulations, the contributors consider such topics as risk-based regulation; research involving vulnerable populations (including military personnel, children, and prisoners); the relationships among subjects, investigators, sponsors, and institutional review boards; privacy, especially regarding biospecimens and tissue banking; and the possibility of fundamental paradigm shifts.
Contributors Adam Braddock, Alexander Morgan Capron, Ellen Wright Clayton, I. Glenn Cohen, Susan Cox, Amy L. Davis, Hilary Eckert, Barbara J. Evans, Nir Eyal, Heidi Li Feldman, Benjamin Fombonne, Elisa A. Hurley, Ana S. Iltis, Gail H. Javitt, Greg Koski, Nicole Lockhart, Holly Fernandez Lynch, Michael McDonald, Michelle N. Meyer, Osagie K. Obasogie, Efthimios Parasidis, Govind Persad, Rosamond Rhodes, Suzanne M. Rivera, Zachary M. Schrag, Seema K. Shah, Jeffrey Skopek, Laura Stark, Patrick Taylor, Anne Townsend, Carol Weil, Brett A. Williams, Leslie E. Wolf
For a more information, including the full table of contents, check out the book on the MIT Press website
My good friends and co-authors at Simon Fraser University have a nice new website aimed at Canadians (though useful for people from all countries) considering using medical tourism about what to think about, questions to ask, steps to take, etc (Full Disclosure: I participated in a feedback session on the website). Here is a story about the website in the National Post, and here is the website itself.
Update: The Moore Foundation has generously paid to make my article available as open access on their website here. Today I am speaking at Health Affairs’ “Using Big Data to Transform Health Care” in DC, that will also launch its new issue devoted to the topic. I have a co-authored paper in the volume entitled “The Legal And Ethical Concerns That Arise From Using Complex Predictive Analytics In Health Care” that has just been released. Ironically the article is behind a paywall (while data wants to be free, I guess big data is different!) Here is the abstract.
Predictive analytics, or the use of electronic algorithms to forecast future events in real time, makes it possible to harness the power of big data to improve the health of patients and lower the cost of health care. However, this opportunity raises policy, ethical, and legal challenges. In this article we analyze the major challenges to implementing predictive analytics in health care settings and make broad recommendations for overcoming challenges raised in the four phases of the life cycle of a predictive analytics model: acquiring data to build the model, building and validating it, testing it in real-world settings, and disseminating and using it more broadly. For instance, we recommend that model developers implement governance structures that include patients and other stakeholders starting in the earliest phases of development. In addition, developers should be allowed to use already collected patient data without explicit consent, provided that they comply with federal regulations regarding research on human subjects and the privacy of health information.
I will also have a related paper on mobile health coming out later this summer that I will blog about when it comes out…
Check out the “hot off the press” New England Journal of Medicine Perspectives piece “When Religious Freedom Clashes with Access to Care” by Petrie-Flom Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen, Executive Director Holly Fernandez Lynch, and NEJM Executive Editor (and PFC Faculty Affiliate), Gregory Curfman. We review the legal background for SCOTUS’ Hobby Lobby decision, summarize the majority and dissenting opinions, and clarify some key implications of the case, including further problematization of the employer-based health insurance system, reduced likelihood of future attempts to offer religious exemptions to health care mandates, and expanded religious challenges in the health care space. We close by noting that although the public’s ire and praise has been directed at the Justices, they were applying Congress’ statute – and Congress could (but is very unlikely to) amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to be less stringent, or otherwise intervene to ensure that women have affordable access to contraceptive services regardless of their employer’s beliefs.
Take a look and let us know what you think!
Register online now!
The application of big data to transform health care delivery, health research, and health policy is underway, and its potential is limitless. The July 2014 issue of Health Affairs, “Using Big Data To Transform Care,” examines this new era for research and patient care from every angle.
You are invited to join Health Affairs Editor-in-Chief Alan Weil on Wednesday, July 9, for an event at the National Press Club, when the issue will be unveiled and authors will present their work. Panels will cover:
- Using Big Data At The Point Of Care
- Research Issues
- The Role Of The Federal Government
- Obstacles/Challenges Of Using Big Data
Among the confirmed speakers are: Continue reading
Petrie-Flom Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show last night to discuss his recent opinion piece in JAMA, coauthored with Robert D. Truog and Mark A. Rockoff (both of Harvard Medical School), on “Physicians, Medical Ethics, and Execution by Lethal Injection.” In the piece, Cohen et al. argue that medical specialty boards should withdraw board certification from members who participate in executions.
From the interview:
…we think it [execution] is totally incompatible with the role of the doctor. A doctor is about healing. A doctor is about soothing pain. A doctor is not meant to be conscripted by the state to make what is the involuntary killing of another person look as though it’s a medical procedure, like getting your teeth pulled or putting your dog to sleep. It’s kabuki theater, Rachel, and we think doctors should stand up. Whatever your position is on capital punishment, it’s wrong to make this procedure look like medicine. That’s not what it is. [...]
Watch the full interview.
Yesterday JAMA published a new perspective I co-wrote with Bob Truog and Mark Rockoff “Physicians, Medical Ethics, and Execution by Lethal Injection“. In that article we make the case that the recommendations coming out of the Oklahoma botched lethal injection executions to require physician involvement would force physicians into an untenable medical ethical position. We also argue that it supports a kind of kabuki theater of medicalization, where execution becomes normalized.
Now comes a news report of a Utah lawmaker pushing to give those set to be executed the option of firing squad which he views as more humane than lethal injection. Many people will no doubt recoil at this notion. But here is my intentionally provocative question (and this is on my behalf not my co-authors): If you are in favor of capital punishment, wouldn’t a single close range shot to the head as a form of execution be, in some ways, more defensible than lethal injection? If you recoil at the notion of this being a way of doing execution, have you perhaps fallen for the kabuki theater of medicalization? Why not choose a method of execution that is more honest about the gravity (and perhaps the horror) of what we are doing rather than present something as somewhere on a continuum with sedation?
Petrie-Flom Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen has coauthored a new opinion piece now available through JAMA, “Physicians, Medical Ethics, and Execution by Lethal Injection.” From the article:
In the wake of the recent botched execution by lethal injection in Oklahoma, however, a group of eminent legal professionals known as the Death Penalty Committee of The Constitution Project has published a sweeping set of 39 recommendations that not only tinker with, but hope to fix, the multitude of problems that affect this method of capital punishment.
Many of the recommendations this committee makes with regard to legal and administrative reforms appear worthwhile and reasonable. Their final recommendation, however, concerns the role of the medical profession in performing lethal injection. It states: “Jurisdictions should ensure that qualified medical personnel are present at executions and responsible for all medically-related elements of executions.”
In particular, the recommendation specifies that “Execution team members…are licensed, practicing doctors, nurses or emergency medical technicians who are responsible for performing functions in their day-to-day practice that are similar to those they will perform at the execution.” Regardless of this committee’s recommendations, physician participation in capital punishment is an ethical dilemma that the profession of medicine must address.
Read the full article.
by Dov Fox
You know the King of Pop died in 2009 while rehearsing for a comeback tour in London. Here’s a twist you may not have heard about: Michael Jackson fan club members sued Conrad Murray, the doctor who administered the lethal overdose of anesthesia. And the celebrity enthusiasts won. A French court recently awarded five of the grieving fans economic damages (albeit just a euro each) to compensate for their emotional suffering.
The case highlights a neglected problem in our own law, not just medical malpractice, but constitutional and common law too. It’s this: Supreme Court rules and policies about harm, compulsion, and intentionality rely on the flawed assumption that operations of the mind are meaningfully distinct from those of the body. In our new essay on Dualism and Doctrine, Alex Stein and I (1) demonstrate just how this fiction distorts the law, (2) argue that the reasons for its persistence cannot save it, and (3) identify the ways in which courts should uproot dualism’s pernicious influence on our legal system. Continue reading
[Ed. Note: On Friday, May 2 and Saturday, May 3, 2014, the Petrie-Flom Center hosted its 2014 annual conference: "Behavioral Economics, Law, and Health Policy." This is an installment in our series of live blog posts from the event; video will be available later in the summer on our website.]
In this next installment of today’s live-blogging of the conference (and with all of the caveats of live-blogging mentioned by my colleagues and my apologies for any errors or misrepresentations) we have Professors David Hyman (DH), Mark White (MW) and Andrea Freeman (AF) in a panel moderated by Glenn Cohen (GC) on the “Potential Problems and Limits of Nudges in Health Care”.
The panel began with DH, H. Ross & Helen Workman Chair in Law and Director of the Epstein Program in Health Law and Policy, University of Illinois College of Law, and a talk entitled, “what can PPACA teach us about behavioral law and economics” (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). DH began with the observation that nudges often work quite well… “unless they don’t”. While many nudges are “sticky”, i.e. they influence behavior in the way they were intended, others are “slippery”, i.e. they fail to influence behavior in the way they were intended. His talk set out to illustrate the phenomenon, and to pose two questions. The first was an empirical question: what makes a nudge sticky vs slippery? The second was philosophical: is it meaningful to talk about a “failed nudge” or when we do, do we really just mean failed marketing? He focused on an analysis of PPACA as a case study.
The MGH Center for Law, Brain and Behavior and Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center announce joint “Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience” for 2014-2016
The MGH Center for Law, Brain and Behavior and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School will collaborate on a joint venture – the Project on Law and Applied Neuroscience – beginning in Fall 2014. The collaboration will include a Senior Fellow in residence, public symposia, and an HLS Law and Neuroscience Seminar.
I am at a fantastic event at Yale I co-organized on Intersections in Reproduction: Perspectives on Abortion, Assisted Reproductive Technologies, and Judicial Review with some amazing scholars present and excellent papers being presented. Like many people who have thought about sex selection, I would have imagined I have thought through most of the issues from most perspectives. What I love about these gatherings is that they always prove me wrong.
Today two very interesting questions were raised about a common argument raised about sex selection, the risk that it will result in unbalanced sex ratios. Our discussion, I would say, “queered” the typical claim in two interesting ways, and I am curious what others think (to be clear these were my thoughts on questions raised, not putting words in their mouths).
For more information, visit the conference website.
Join us at Northeastern University School of Law at 1 p.m. on April 25, 2014 as leading academics and practitioners discuss the tensions between free speech and reproductive rights.
For more information, see http://www.northeastern.edu/law/academics/institutes/health-law/events/clashing-rights/
This week’s twitter round up features a variety of topics from our contributors, from discussions about health care spending and the Affordable Care Act to articles about environmental poisoning of soldiers in Iraq.
- Amitabh Chandra tweeted that “Healthcare spending growth hits a 10yr high… so much for ‘ACA is bending the cost curve’” and shared an article from USA Today.
- Frank Pasquale shared a blog entry by Larry Backer about Pennsylvania State University students’ worries about the rise of health care costs.
- I. Glenn Cohen shared a link to an article in The New York Times entitled “‘Environmental Poisoning’ of Iraq Is Claimed” and states that many veterans suffer from environmental poisoning while the “IOM [is] not sure.”
- Kate Greenwood retweeted Austin Frakt and an article from The Incidental Economist about the negative impact of the insurance market before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act on entrepreneurship.
- Stephen Latham tweeted a link to his blog reporting on the recent announcement of the Public Health Committee of the Connecticut Legislature that it does not plan to vote on a bill addressing “Aid-In-Dying” or physician-assisted suicide despite “61% public support for the bill.”
[Note: This post is meant to be provocative and press a public policy question in the most thought-provoking way possible. Losing a loved one is among the most heart-wrenching experiences in a life time and my heart goes out to all those with loved ones on the flight waiting for answers. But one of the major points of this post is to highlight our tendency to spend more on identified lives not statistical ones for just these kinds of reasons and ask if it is justified.]
The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 is likely run to “Hundreds of Millions of Dollars” according to the most recent estimate from ABC News. This is based on extrapolation of the difficulties involved and the experience of searching for Air France 447 which cost 50 million USD. Let’s take a conservative estimate of 100 million USD to find the plane, probably on the low end. Let us put aside the possibility that even with that expenditure the plane will never be found, again an assumption that counts against the argument I will be making. This is 100 million dollars spent, roughly speaking, on “helping.” It is very unlikely that there are any survivors, so I don’t think this can reasonably be thought of as “life-saving” (I will assume it is not, but if it were that wouldn’t make that much of a difference in the argument I will offer though it will require confronting the question of Should the Numbers Count for life saving?).
Instead the money is being spent (1) to satisfy the somewhat diffuse curiosity/grief of those who have watched this in the media, (2) to give answers to the very deep need for closure of the loved ones of those flying on these planes, and (3) to learn about what went wrong and potentially determine whether there is a systemic problem with these planes that might affect other planes.
All of those are worthy goals. But are they worth 100 million USD? In the category of “helping” or “life-saving” what else could we do with the money? Let me draw on one estimate mentioned by Ezra Klein in the WaPo and Don Taylor at the Incidental Economist from a paper by Tammy Tengs “Five Hundred Life Saving Interventions and Their Cost Effectiveness“
I chose the cheapest intervention, influenza vaccines for children age 5+ which is estimated to cost $1,300/life year saved in 1993 dollars. I then updated that to 2013 dollars with a conversion calculator to generate a cost of 1915.89 USD per life year saved (it may also be that this intervention is now cheaper than it was at the time of Teng’s paper). I then divided 100 million dollars by that number to get my 52,192 life years saved for children estimate. That is fairly back of the envelope and there are lots of tweaks you would do to get a more exact figure, but it is close enough to make the point: Why are we spending so much on Malaysia Airlines search when we could be saving so many lives?
Thursday, March 27, 2014, 12:00pm
Wasserstein Hall 1019, Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA
More than 30 years have passed since AIDS first appeared in the United States. Today the CDC estimates that 1.1 million Americans are living with HIV/AIDS, and each year 50,000 Americans are newly diagnosed. Despite great strides in education, awareness, prevention, and treatment, people affected by HIV/AIDS still face significant discrimination, including unequal treatment under the law. This panel will explore some of the legal barriers faced by people living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, including FDA’s ban on men who have sex with men donating blood and laws criminalizing HIV transmission. Panelists include:
- Felix Lopez, Director of the Legal Department, GMHC
- Jason Cianciotto, Director of the Public Policy Department, GMHC
- I. Glenn Cohen, Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School
- Moderator: Aziza Ahmed, Visiting Scholar, Petrie-Flom Center; Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law
This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be provided. For questions, contact email@example.com or 617-496-4662.
This event is cosponsored by Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC). Founded in New York in 1981, GMHC is one of the world’s first and leading providers of HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and advocacy.
Our friends at the New England Journal of Medicine have a great editorial chastising Congress and the White House for potentially bowing to the NRA’s pressure not to confirm Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General. The whole thing is worth a read but here are a couple of key paragraphs.
This is the first time that the NRA has flexed its political muscle over the appointment of a surgeon general. The NRA has taken this action even though the surgeon general has no authority over firearm regulation and even though Murthy made it clear in his testimony before the Senate HELP Committee that if he is confirmed, his principal focus will be on the important national problem of obesity prevention, not firearm policy. Still, 10 Senate Democrats are apparently prepared to vote against Murthy’s confirmation because of his personal views on firearms — a demonstration of just how much political power our legislators have ceded to the NRA.
The critical question is this: Should a special-interest organization like the NRA have veto power over the appointment of the nation’s top doctor? The very idea is unacceptable.
Despite the continuing American tragedy of mass shootings — Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech — the NRA has redoubled its efforts to prevent enactment of stricter firearm regulations. Lawmakers who run afoul of the NRA face political retribution. By obstructing the President’s nomination of Vivek Murthy as surgeon general, the NRA is taking its single-issue political blackmail to a new level. With the record of past surgeons general as their guide, senators should do what is right for the health of our country by confronting the NRA and voting their own conscience. Dr. Murthy is an accomplished physician, policymaker, leader, and entrepreneur. He deserves the President’s continued backing and should be confirmed.
I think this is very well said and largely sympathetic. The one point on which I will slightly veer off course (disagree with is too strong) from NEJM has to do with the connection between gun safety and health. I do think it is legitimate to view gun safety and firearm deaths as a HEALTH issue, even if not particularly a HEALTH CARE issue. It is a staple part of public health regulatory studies, along with drugs, alcohol, obesity, and tobacco. While we have the CDC as a kind of public health federal executive power, as its name suggests communicable and non-communicable disease has always been its focus. I think it would be great if we understand the “top doc” of the United States’ role as being about HEALTH and not just HEALTH CARE, so I would not (and to be clear I don’t think NEJM has) draw too strong a line between these two in an attempt to salvage this nomination. Doctors (not exclusively of other actors in the system, of course) should view themselves as agents of HEALTH not just HEALTH CARE, and I would hate for Murthy or other doctors’ efforts in the broader sphere to be dismissed as “frolicks” or “extracurricular.”