Anti-Selection is Only the Beginning.

This commentary proposes the need for greater normative debate about when, if ever, it is appropriate for insurers to access genetic information of insureds to combat anti-selection.

Filling a Federal Void: Promises and Perils of State Law in Addressing Women's Health Disparities.

Federal law often avoids setting minimum standards for women's health and reproductive rights issues, leaving legislative and regulatory gaps for the states to fill as they see fit. This has mixed results. It can lead to state innovation that improves state-level health outcomes, informs federal health reform, and provides data on best practices for other states. On the other hand, some states may use the absence of a federal floor to impose draconian policies that pose risks to women's and maternal health. Health reforms at the federal level must trod carefully to enable state innovation, while imposing foundational safeguards for promoting women's health nationwide.

Legal Remedies to Address Stigma-Based Health Inequalities in the United States: Challenges and Opportunities.

Policy Points Stigma is an established driver of population-level health outcomes. Antidiscrimination laws can generate or alleviate stigma and, thus, are a critical component in the study of improving population health. Currently, antidiscrimination laws are often underenforced and are sometimes conceptualized by courts and lawmakers in ways that are too narrow to fully reach all forms of stigma and all individuals who are stigmatized. To remedy these limitations, we propose the creation of a new population-level surveillance system of antidiscrimination law and its enforcement, a central body to enforce antidiscrimination laws, as well as a collaborative research initiative to enhance the study of the linkages between health and antidiscrimination law in the future. CONTEXT: Stigma is conceptualized as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. Antidiscrimination law is one important lever that can influence stigma-based health inequities, and yet several challenges currently limit the law's potential to address them. METHODS: To determine whether antidiscrimination law adequately addresses stigma, we compared antidiscrimination law for its applicability to the domains and statuses where stigma is experienced according to the social science literature. To further examine whether law is a sufficient remedy for stigma, we reviewed law literature and government sources for the adequacy of antidiscrimination law enforcement. We also reviewed the law literature for critiques of antidiscrimination law, which revealed conceptual limits of antidiscrimination law that we applied to the context of stigma. FINDINGS: In this article, we explored the importance of antidiscrimination law in addressing the population-level health consequences of stigma and found two key challenges-conceptualization and enforcement-that currently limit its potential. We identified several practical solutions to make antidiscrimination law a more available tool to tackle the health inequities caused by stigma, including (1) the development of a new surveillance system for antidiscrimination laws and their enforcement, (2) an interdisciplinary working group to study the impact of antidiscrimination laws on health, and (3) a central agency tasked with monitoring enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. CONCLUSIONS: Antidiscrimination law requires better tailoring based on the evidence of who is affected by stigma, as well as where and how stigma occurs, or it will be a poor tool for remedying stigma, regardless of its level of enforcement. Further interdisciplinary research is needed to identify the ways in which law can be crafted into a better tool for redressing the health harms of stigma and to delimit clearer boundaries for when law is and is not the appropriate remedy for these stigma-induced inequities.

Financing uterus transplants: The United States context.

The first baby has successfully been born by uterus transplantation (UTx) in the United States and the procedure is swiftly becoming a viable clinical option for patients with uterine factor infertility (UFI). This raises a practical ethical question: should health insurers finance UTx and what issues should they consider in coming to this decision? The article lays forth some of the factors that shape the decision over whether to finance UTx in the United States, including what procedures must be covered, whether UTx is more like organ transplantation or infertility treatment (which are treated differently in the United States), and the benefits and alternatives of the procedure. Then, the article explores arguments around why UTx should be financed, or at least considered along with other important medical needs. The paper argues that UTx ought to be considered along with other competing claims for healthcare services. In countries that generously cover other infertility services, it may logically follow that medical services that enable gestation should be insured when the healthcare system covers services to conceive. In the United States, however, many groups have long suffered inadequate access to medical care, in the context of infertility and more broadly. U.S. healthcare may need to be made more widely equitable, before covering UTx is seen as financially or politically possible.

Report by the American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs on Physicians' Exercise of Conscience.

As practicing clinicians, physicians are expected to uphold the ethical norms of their profession, including fidelity to patients and respect for patients' self-determination. At the same time, as individuals, physicians are moral agents in their own right and, like their patients, are informed by and committed to diverse cultural, religious, and philosophical traditions and beliefs. In some circumstances, the expectation that physicians will put patients' needs and preferences first may be in tension with the need to sustain the sense of moral integrity and continuity that grounds a physician's personal and professional life. This article examines the implications for patients, physicians, and the medical profession when tensions arise between a physician's professional commitments and his or her deeply held personal moral beliefs. It offers guidance on when a physician's professional commitments should outweigh personal beliefs as well as when physicians should have freedom to act according to the dictates of conscience while still protecting patients' interests.

Conflicts of Interest and Effective Oversight of Assisted Reproduction Using Donated Oocytes.

Oocyte donation raises conflicts of interest and commitment for physicians but little attention has been paid to how to reduce these conflicts in practice. Yet the growing popularity of assisted reproduction has increased the stakes of maintaining an adequate oocyte supply and (where appropriate) minimizing conflicts. A growing body of professional guidelines, legal challenges to professional self-regulation, and empirical research on the practice of oocyte donation all call for renewed attention to the issue. As empirical findings better inform existing conflicts and their potential harms, we can better attempt to reduce these conflicts. To that end, the article first describes the nature of conflicts in oocyte donation and relevant regulations and professional guidelines. We then describe studies on conflicts at four phases of oocyte donation: recruitment, screening, stimulation, and post-stimulation monitoring. Next we consider three models for conflict reduction in medicine generally: improved professional self-regulation, outright restriction like Stark anti-referral laws, or the use of conflict mediators, like in living organ donation. We ultimately conclude that improved professional self-regulation is a reasonable starting place for oocyte donation.

Uterus transplantation: the ethics of moving the womb.

Although currently in the early clinical research phase, the first successful birth of a child after uterus transplant is an early step toward another reproductive option for women with uterine factor infertility. Uterus transplantation uniquely brings together the fields of assisted reproductive technology and transplant medicine and represents the world's first ephemeral transplant completed to improve quality of life rather than extending life. However, the ethical, legal, and social implications of uterus transplantation must be carefully analyzed for the donor, recipient, and resulting child before uterus transplant moves from clinical research to clinical practice.

Uterus transplantation: ethical and regulatory challenges.

Moving forward rapidly in the clinical research phase, uterus transplantation may be a future treatment option for women with uterine factor infertility, which accounts for three per cent of all infertility in women. This new method of treatment would allow women, who currently rely on gestational surrogacy or adoption, to gestate and birth their own genetic offspring. Since uterus transplantation carries significant risk when compared with surrogacy and adoption as well as when compared with other organ transplants, it requires greater justification because its goals are quality of life, not life-saving, in their scope. It is important to address questions regarding the physical, psychosocial and ethical risks and benefits of uterus transplantation for all three parties involved--the patient, the donor and the potential child--as well as discuss the regulatory implications as research on uterus transplantations moves forward.

The 2013 review of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act: a call to action.

In September 2013, Congress again will review the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Fourteen states cover the fetus only (and not the pregnant woman) under the "unborn child" provision of the current law. That the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act continues to make it possible for states to provide health insurance coverage to the fetus only has been critiqued for unnecessarily politicizing the law, dragging abortion and personhood debates into the matter of children's health insurance and creating unacceptable tensions between maternal and fetal health. Although the 2009 reauthorization attempted to remedy this issue by also providing coverage for the pregnant mother, it is imperative to review these changes and their effect before the 2013 reauthorization. To ensure optimum health care for both the fetus and the woman, we urge for removal of the "unborn child" pathway and promote coverage of both the fetus and the pregnant woman.