The end of Roe v. Wade has significant implications for the autonomy of pregnant patients at the end of life. At least thirty states restrict the choice to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments from pregnant patients without decisional capacity, invalidating prior advance directives and prohibiting others from choosing these options for the patient. Many restrictions are based on the Roe framework, applying after “viability” or similar considerations of fetal development or prospect for live birth. Scholars have also relied on the abortion framework, arguing that the restrictions impose an undue burden. The end of Roe will free states from having to craft limited restrictions designed to work around prior abortion jurisprudence. Similarly, advocates will no longer be able to draw support from the abortion framework, forcing them to rely instead on cases supporting rights to autonomy/bodily integrity in medical decision-making.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has resulted in fewer rights and resources for people seeking abortion care, particularly in the South. The Hyde Amendment has historically restricted abortion access for those enrolled in Medicaid. We argue here that its guarantees of minimum abortion coverage should be leveraged to offset harms where possible.

“Comprehensive Healthcare for America” is a largely single-payer reform proposal that, by applying the insights of behavioral economics, may be able to rally patients and clinicians sufficiently to overcome the opposition of politicians and vested interests to providing all Americans with less complicated and less costly access to needed healthcare.

In 2022, the Camden Coalition Medical-Legal Partnership began providing civil and criminal legal services to substance use disorder patients at Cooper University Health Care’s Center for Healing. This paper discusses early findings from the program’s first year on the efficacy of the provision of criminal-legal representation, which is uncommon among MLPs and critical for this patient population. The paper concludes with takeaways for other programs providing legal services in an addiction medicine setting.

The United States has the fastest growing prison population in the world, and elevated incarceration rates, substance use, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence are fueling each other. Yet without a national guideline mandated for HIV care within the prison system, standards for state and federal prisons vary greatly.

This article describes a new type of medical-legal partnership (MLP) that targets the health and justice concerns of people enmeshed in the U.S criminal justice system: a partnership between clinicians who care for people with criminal system involvement and public defenders. This partnership offers an opportunity to not only improve patient health outcomes but also to facilitate less punitive court dispositions, such as jointly advocating for community-based rehabilitation and treatment rather than incarceration.

Punitive policy responses to substance use and to abortion care constitute direct attacks on personal liberty and bodily autonomy. In this article, we leverage the concept of “syndemics” to anticipate how the already synergistic stigmas against people who use drugs and people who seek abortion services will be further compounded the Dobbs decision.

Drawing on ethical and legal frameworks in the Netherlands, the United States and France, we examine whether physicians are expected to inform patients about potentially relevant opportunities for expanded access to investigational drugs. While we found no definitive legal obligation, we argue that physicians have a moral obligation to discuss opportunities for expanded access with patients who have run out of treatment options to prevent inequality, to promote autonomy, and to achieve beneficence.

Studies of public health decisions that have had harmful effects tend to disagree about what constitutes a public health error. Debates exist about whether public health errors must be culpable or not, as well as about what the criteria for judging public health errors should be.

Many formerly incarcerated people have civil legal needs that can imperil their successful re-entry to society and, consequently, their health. We categorize these needs and assess their association with cardiovascular disease risk factors in a sample of recently released people. We find that having legal needs related to debt, public benefits, housing, or healthcare access is associated with psychosocial stress, but not uncontrolled high blood pressure or high cholesterol, in the first three months after release.

This article explores the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in drug approval and restrictions to mifepristone access in the context of historical regulation and current litigation.

Vermeulen et al. suggest a moral duty exists for physicians to inform patients of “relevant opportunities” for Expanded Access. Such a duty is likely both too broad, leading to important practical challenges, and too narrow, without further steps to promote patient access. However, physicians should be expected to be aware of the EA pathway, disclose it to eligible patients, and support the pursuit of EA options reasonably likely to help.

While sexual violence should not be the prerequisite for legal abortion, expanding definitions of abuse to include reproductive coercion can open avenues of access to abortion following the Dobbs decision. Understanding the increased danger and compounding challenges of intimate partner violence can inform legislative initiatives, healthcare responses, and movements for reproductive justice.

Opioid agonist treatment, including methadone, is the safest and most effective method for treating opioid use disorders and reduces opioid overdose deaths. While access to methadone is highly regulated by federal law, a substantial portion of states impose stricter barriers.

This article examines Bey v. City of New York — a recent Second Circuit case where four Black firefights suffering from Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (a skin condition causing irritation when shaving which mostly affects Black men) challenged the New York City Fire Department’s Clean Shave Policy — with an intersectional approach utilizing legal theories of racial, disability, and religious discrimination.

As reproductive freedoms in the U.S. undergo significant rollbacks, vital reproductive health services — and the care teams delivering them — face escalating legal threats and complexity. This qualitative case-control community-based participatory research study describes how legal problem-solving supports for reproductive care teams serving mothers with opioid use disorder are protective for both patients and care team members. We describe how medical legal partnerships (MLPs) can promote Reproductive Justice and argue for wider adoption of care-team facing legal supports.