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.

In this article, we consider the possible application of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to “citizen scientist”-led health research with mobile devices. We argue that the GDPR likely does cover this activity, depending on the specific context and the territorial scope. Remaining open questions that result from our analysis lead us to call for lex specialis that would provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the processing of health data by for research purposes, including these non-traditional researchers.

Mobile devices with health apps, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, crowd-sourced information, and other data sources have enabled research by new classes of researchers. Independent researchers, citizen scientists, patient-directed researchers, self-experimenters, and others are not covered by federal research regulations because they are not recipients of federal financial assistance or conducting research in anticipation of a submission to the FDA for approval of a new drug or medical device. This article addresses the difficult policy challenge of promoting the welfare and interests of research participants, as well as the public, in the absence of regulatory requirements and without discouraging independent, innovative scientific inquiry. The article recommends a series of measures, including education, consultation, transparency, self-governance, and regulation to strike the appropriate balance.

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 aim of this study was to investigate the ethical dilemma of prioritising financial resources to expensive biological therapies. For this purpose, the four principles of biomedical ethics formulated by ethicists Tom Beauchamp and James Childress were used as a theoretical framework. Based on arguments of justice, Beauchamp and Childress advocate for a health care system organised in line with the Danish system. Notably, our study was carried out in a Danish setting.

This first-of-its-kind national survey of 485 psychiatrists in nine states and the District of Columbia (DC) finds substantial evidence of clinicians being uninformed, misinformed, and misinforming patients of their gun rights regarding involuntary commitments and voluntary inpatient admissions. A significant percentage of psychiatrists (36.9%) did not understand that an involuntary civil commitment triggered the loss of gun rights, and the majority of psychiatrists in states with prohibitors on voluntary admissions (57%) and emergency holds (56%) were unaware that patients would lose gun rights upon voluntary admission or temporary commitment. Moreover, the survey found evidence that psychiatrists may use gun rights to negotiate “voluntary” commitments with patients: 15.9% of respondents reported telling patients they could preserve their gun rights by permitting themselves to be voluntarily admitted for treatment, in lieu of being involuntarily committed. The results raise questions of whether psychiatrists obtained full informed consent for voluntary patient admissions, and suggest that some medical providers in states with voluntary admission prohibitor laws may unwittingly deprive their patients of a constitutional right. The study calls into question the fairness of state prohibitor laws as policy, and — at minimum — indicates an urgent need for psychiatrist training on their state gun laws.

In many countries, health technology assessment (HTA) organizations determine the economic value of new drugs and make recommendations regarding appropriate pricing and coverage in national health systems. In the US, recent policy proposals aimed at reducing drug costs would link drug prices to six countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the UK. We reviewed these countries’ methods of HTA and guidance on price and coverage recommendations, analyzing methods and guidance documents for differences in (1) the methodologies HTA organizations use to conduct their evaluations and (2) considerations they use when making recommendations. We found important differences in the methods, interpretations of HTA findings, and condition-specific carve-outs that HTA organizations use to conduct evaluations and make recommendations. These variations have ethical implications because they influence the recommendations of HTA organizations, which affect access to the drug through national insurance and price negotiations with manufacturers. The differences in HTA approaches result from the distinct political, social, and cultural contexts of each organization and its value judgments. New cost-containment policies in the US should consider the ethical implications of the HTA reviews that they are considering relying on to negotiate drug prices and what values should be included in US pricing policy.

This article proposes potential strategies to address gun violence in communities of color while identifying the harms associated with a policing-centered, criminal legal approach. In addition to highlighting the dangers associated with the United States' current criminal legal tactics to reduce gun violence in these communities, the authors advocate for community-endorsed strategies that give those impacted by this issue the resources to take on gun violence in their own communities. Specifically, they identify, describe, and endorse a series of violence prevention programs that rely on community relations to detect and prevent incidents of gun violence and that view gun violence as a public health rather than criminal legal issue.