The Scholarly and Pedagogical Benefits of the Legal Laboratory: Lessons from the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury at Yale Law School.

In our article, we share the lessons we have learned after creating and running a successful legal laboratory over the past seven years at Yale Law School. Our legal laboratory, which focuses on the intersection of law and severe brain injury, represents a unique pedagogical model for legal academia, and is closely influenced by the biomedical laboratory.

Holding Medical Professional Society Scientific Meetings Only in States That Protect Abortion Rights-Clinical and Ethical Considerations.

This Viewpoint suggests that professional societies should continue to advocate for equitable access for patients to all necessary medical care including abortion care.

State insurance mandates for in vitro fertilization are not associated with improving racial and ethnic disparities in utilization and treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in utilization and clinical outcomes following fertility care with in vitro fertilization in the United States are well-documented. Given the cost of fertility care, lack of insurance is a barrier to access across all races and ethnicities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine how state insurance mandates are associated with racial and ethnic disparities in in vitro fertilization utilization and clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cohort study using data from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Outcome Reporting System from 2014 to 2019 for autologous in vitro fertilization cycles. The primary outcomes were utilization-defined as the number of in vitro fertilization cycles per 10,000 reproductive-aged women-and cumulative live birth-defined as the delivery of at least 1 liveborn neonate resulting from a single stimulation cycle and its corresponding fresh or thawed transfers. RESULTS: Most (72.9%) of the 1,096,539 cycles from 487,191 women occurred in states without an insurance mandate. Although utilization was higher across all racial and ethnic groups in mandated states, the increase in utilization was greatest for non-Hispanic Asian and non-Hispanic White women. For instance, in the most recent study year (2019), the utilization rates for non-Hispanic White women compared with non-Hispanic Black/African American women were 23.5 cycles per 10,000 women higher in nonmandated states and 56.2 cycles per 10,000 women higher in mandated states. There was no significant interaction between race and ethnicity and insurance mandate status on any of the clinical outcomes (all P-values for interaction terms > .05). CONCLUSION: Racial and ethnic disparities in utilization of in vitro fertilization and clinical outcomes for autologous cycles persist regardless of state health insurance mandates.

INTRODUCTION: Medical-Legal Partnerships: Equity, Evolution, and Evaluation.

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare systemic inequities shaped by social determinants of health (SDoH). Public health agencies, legislators, health systems, and community organizations took notice, and there is currently unprecedented interest in identifying and implementing programs to address SDoH. This special issue focuses on the role of medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) in addressing SDoH and racial and social inequities, as well as the need to support these efforts with evidence-based research, data, and meaningful partnerships and funding.

Legislation restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth: Politics eclipse healthcare.

In the past two years, in 25 US states, bills have been introduced to restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for minors. Some have already become law. We show how these bills, while purporting to "protect" trans youth, are really an assault on their ability, along with their parents' and physicians', to make healthcare choices and to receive medically necessary care. We discuss the evidence-based guidelines for the care of these patients, the positions taken by major medical societies against these bills, and the landscape of legal challenges that are being brought against these enacted laws.

Reflections on New Evidence on Crisis Standards of Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Crisis standards of care have been widely developed by healthcare systems and states in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in some rare cases have actually been used to allocate medical resources. All publicly available U.S. crisis standards of care with a mechanism for allocating scarce resources make use of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in hopes of assigning scarce resources to those patients who are more likely to survive. We reflect on the growing body of evidence suggesting that the SOFA score has limited accuracy in predicting mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and that the SOFA score systematically disfavors Black patients. Use of the SOFA score for allocating scarce resources may therefore result in Black patients with equal likelihood of survival being deprived of life-saving medical resources. There is also a risk of injustice for patients with non-COVID-19 diagnoses, for whom the SOFA score may be a more accurate prognostic score, but who might nevertheless be unfairly (de)prioritized when assessed alongside COVID-19 patients using the same scoring system. For these reasons we recommend that the SOFA score not be used for triage purposes during the COVID pandemic, and that a national effort be made to develop and empirically test crisis standards of care in advance of the next public health emergency.

Triage and justice in an unjust pandemic: ethical allocation of scarce medical resources in the setting of racial and socioeconomic disparities.

Shortages of life-saving medical resources caused by COVID-19 have prompted hospitals, healthcare systems, and governmentsto develop crisis standards of care, including 'triage protocols' to potentially ration medical supplies during the public health emergency. At the same time, the pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic health disparities that together constitute a form of structural racism. These disparities pose a critical ethical challenge in developing fair triage systems that will maximize lives saved without perpetuating systemic inequities. Here we review alternatives to 'utilitarian' triage, including first-come first-served, egalitarian, and prioritarian systems of allocating scarce medical resources. We assess the comparative advantages and disadvantages of these allocation schemes. Ultimately, we argue that while triage protocols should not exacerbate disparities, they are not an adequate mechanism for redressing systemic health inequities. Entrenched health disparities must be addressed through broader social change.

Developing a Triage Protocol for the COVID-19 Pandemic: Allocating Scarce Medical Resources in a Public Health Emergency.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has caused shortages of life-sustaining medical resources, and future waves of the virus may cause further scarcity. The Yale New Haven Health System developed a triage protocol to allocate scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the primary goal of saving the most lives possible, and a secondary goal of making triage assessments and decisions consistent, transparent, and fair. We outline the process of developing the triage protocol, summarize the protocol itself, and discuss the major ethical challenges encountered, along with our answers to these challenges. These challenges include (1) the role of age and chronic comorbidities; (2) evaluating children and pregnant patients; (3) racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in health; (4) prioritization of healthcare workers; and (5) balancing clinical judgment versus protocolized assessments. We conclude with a review of the limitations of our protocol and the lessons learned. We hope that a robust public discussion of such protocols and the ethical challenges that they raise will result in the fairest possible processes, less need for triage, and more lives saved during future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar public health emergencies.

Which Legal Approaches Help Limit Harms to Patients From Clinicians' Conscience-Based Refusals?

This article canvasses laws protecting clinicians' conscience and focuses on dilemmas that occur when a clinician refuses to perform a procedure consistent with the standard of care. In particular, the article focuses on patients' experience with a conscientiously objecting clinician at a secular institution, where patients are least likely to expect conscience-based care restrictions. After reviewing existing laws that protect clinicians' conscience, the article discusses limited legal remedies available to patients.

Understanding the Role of Law in Reducing Firearm Injury through Clinical Interventions.

Firearm injury in the United States is a public health crisis in which physicians are uniquely situated to intervene. However, their ability to mitigate harm is limited by a complex array of laws and regulations that shape their role in firearm injury prevention. This piece uses four clinical scenarios to illustrate how these laws and regulations impact physician practice, including patient counseling, injury reporting, and the use of court orders and involuntary holds. Unintended consequences on clinical practice of laws intended to reduce firearm injury are also discussed. Lessons drawn from these cases suggest that physicians require more nuanced education on this topic, and that policymakers should consult front-line healthcare providers when designing firearm policies.

The "Rules of the Road": Ethics, Firearms, and the Physician's "Lane".

Physicians play a critical role in preventing and treating firearm injury, although the scope of that role remains contentious and lacks systematic definition. This piece aims to utilize the fundamental principles of medical ethics to present a framework for physician involvement in firearm violence. Physicians' agency relationship with their patients creates ethical obligations grounded on three principles of medical ethics - patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Taken together, they suggest that physicians ought to engage in clinical screening and treatment related to firearm violence. The principle of beneficence also applies more generally, but more weakly, to relations between physicians and society, creating nonobligatory moral ideals. Balanced against physicians' primary obligations to patient agency relationships, general beneficence suggests that physicians may engage in public advocacy to address gun violence, although they are not ethically obligated to do so. A fourth foundational principle - justice - requires that clinicians attempt to ensure that the benefits and burdens of healthcare are distributed fairly.

CRISPR diagnostics: Underappreciated uses in perinatology.

CRISPR-based therapeutics have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of hereditary diseases, but current efforts to translate research to the bedside face significant technical, regulatory, and ethical hurdles. In this article, we discuss an underappreciated application of CRISPR: diagnostic testing, and argue that: (1) CRISPR diagnostics are poised to disrupt diagnostic practices including perinatal screening and (2) since CRISPR diagnostics pose minimal technical, regulatory and ethical hurdles (unlike CRISPR therapeutic uses) they are likely to be clinically relevant before CRISPR-based therapies, and thus warrant medical community's attention.