The application of advanced biopreservation to organs donated for transplantation may make possible their indefinite storage and thereby improve the utility and equity they provide to patients. The technology is still at a preclinical stage, with many difficult, scientific issues that remain to be answered. At the moment, however, the actual capabilities of the technology are too indefinite to begin formulating the statutes, regulations, and ethical guidance that will be needed to obtain the benefits expected from its use.

This article presents a framework of ethical analysis for anticipatory evaluation of advanced biopreservation technologies and employs the framework illustratively in three domains. The framework features four clusters of general ethical considerations: (1) Producing Benefits, Minimizing Harms, Balancing Benefits, Risk, and Costs; (2) Justice, Fairness, Equity; (3) Respect for Autonomy; and (4) Transparency, Trustworthiness, and Public Trust.

This article argues that beneath the veneer of legitimacy in the organ, tissue, and body part transplantation systems exists a horrifying history of human commodification whose vestiges surprisingly linger in contemporary supply and allocation systems. This history, as the Article demonstrates, dates back to the colonial period in the United States, where “grave robbing” became an important feature in the advancement of medicine. This legacy lives on.

Biomedical research on advanced cryopreservation has spillover effects on innovation in the food and agricultural sector. Advanced biopreservation technology has three key domains of impact in the food system: (1) improving efficiencies in storage and utilization of gametes and organoids for plant and animal breeding; (2) isochoric methods for preservation of fresh food products; and (3) in biorepositories for storage of genetic resources for agriculturally significant plants and livestock species.

The Cleveland Clinic Innovation Management and Conflict of Interest (“IM&COI”) Program implemented a policy on Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice in 2013. The policy requires review of financial interests greater than $20,000 in a year, or more than 5% equity in a company, when the clinician is prescribing or using products of the company with which they have a relationship. The IM&COI Committee developed definitions for low, medium and high levels of annual compensation and risk and uses a “Matrix” to guide disclosure based on these factors.

In this issue, Zakout discusses European Union (EU) legal provisions for inclusion of patients of all types in clinical trials.1 Shee highlights the unfortunate failure to include adequate numbers of older adults and adults with disabilities in clinical trials of anti-cancer agents. We agree with her argument that this is an ethical issue as well as a scientific and clinical issue.

As increasing proportions of our global population age, transgender people are experiencing higher rates of dementia, and many are afraid to enter long-term care. Structural interventions such as advance directives may help mitigate fears around entering long-term care by managing specific anxieties that transgender people may have about dementia, loss of decision-making capacity, and discrimination in long-term care settings.

This exploratory study set out to pilot use of a Risk Innovation approach to support the development of advanced biopreservation technologies, and the societally beneficial development of advanced technologies more broadly. This is the first study to apply the Risk Innovation approach — which has previously been used to help individual organizations clarify areas of value and threats — to multiple entities involved in developing an emerging technology.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a catalyst to build a stronger European Health Union to protect the health of Europeans and to develop a new Global Health Strategy to contribute to global health security. In positioning itself as a key player in global health governance, the EU seeks to assert its responsibility as a global health actor and deepen its leadership in global health law.

Advanced biopreservation technologies using subzero approaches such as supercooling, partial freezing, and vitrification with reanimating techniques including nanoparticle infusion and laser rewarming are rapidly emerging as technologies with potential to radically disrupt biomedicine, research, aquaculture, and conservation. These technologies could pause biological time and facilitate large-scale banking of biomedical products including organs, tissues, and cell therapies.

To evaluate how study characteristics and methodological aspects compare based on presence or absence of industry funding, Hughes et al. conducted a systematic survey of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in three major medical journals. The authors found industry-funded RCTs were more likely to be blinded, post results on a clinical trials registration database (ClinicalTrials.gov), and accrue high citation counts.1 Conversely, industry-funded trials had smaller sample sizes and more frequently used placebo as the comparator, used a surrogate as their primary outcome, and had positive results.

The exclusion of the elderly and people with disabilities from cancer clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory and is at odds with the ethos of EU principles, laws and research regulations. It further limits study generalizability. Several primary EU laws fronted by the European Charter prohibit engaging in disparate impact discrimination on the grounds of age and disability in all of EU tasks.

Our paper examines what is required to protect and promote effective public discussion and policy development in the current climate of divisive disagreement about many public policy questions. We use abortion as a case example precisely because it is morally fraught. We first consider the changes made by Dobbs, as well as those which led up to the Dobbs decision, accompany it, and follow from it.

The end of the federal COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023, marked a pivotal shift in the landscape of telehealth regulation in the US. Kwan, Jolin, and Shachar analyze the implications of this transition by exposing inconsistencies in access to care. We agree that we now face a “convoluted patchwork of permanent and temporary changes to telehealth law and policy.”1

This tribute compares Charity Scott to Fred Rogers, highlighting how Charity nurtured health law colleagues’ unique gifts and built community. Continuing the neighborhood theme, it highlights encouraging developments relating to health, housing, and place: Medicaid housing supports and potential reparations for redlining-related health inequities.

When skeletal dysplasias are suspected in the prenatal period, investigation, counseling, and management become especially challenging. By better understanding the complex forces at play and parental values, prenatal health care providers may improve the ways in which they counsel patients to improve the decision-making process under conditions of significant uncertainty, including in cases of prenatally suspected skeletal dysplasia.

Balancing on a tightrope twenty feet above the ground is outside the comfort zones of many health law professors. Being there forces you to consider in new ways yourself, your skills, and your surroundings. Fears arise, and yet you must still act. And you must trust that the person who offered you this opportunity cared about you and your well-being, and that they would ensure there was a way to get from where you began to the other side.

This symposium Article describes how prison abolitionist arguments also support the hypothesis that a defining goal of health law should be the abolition of hospitals. Like prison abolitionism, the hospital abolition hypothesis can provide a constructive way to shift the focus of legal analysis from substantive dimensions (in health law — cost, quality, access, and equity) to the dimension of power.

Few people in my memory have a name that more appropriately defines the life they have lived. “Charitable purpose” as defined in O.C.G.A. § 43-17-2 includes any charitable or benevolent purpose including health, education, or social welfare. Anyone who knew Charity Scott knows that she lived a life devoted to providing and improving the health of her community, the education of law students about health law and its use to improve the health of her community, and social welfare by addressing the socio-economic determinants of health. If she had not been assigned that name at birth, those of us who knew her could have easily assigned Charity as a nickname.

In a “mixed bag” 2023-2024 session, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of decisions both favorable and antithetical to public health and safety. Taking on tough constitutional issues implicating gun control, misinformation, and homelessness, the Court also avoided substantive reviews in favor of procedural dismissals in key cases involving reproductive rights and government censorship.