This paper explores a grey area of psychiatric practice and, as with other challenging practices, the law is called upon to navigate conflicting legal issues. In particular, this paper explores the covert administration of medication: the concealment of medication in food or drink so that it will be consumed undetected. Rights-based approaches support nuanced understanding of the practices. Few policies, protocols or guidelines govern the practice in Ontario's psychiatric settings. While covert medication is understood to have “something to do” with rights, there is confusion about how those rights play out on the ground. Institutional silences underlie and reinforce the practice. Most pressing, the covert administration of medication warrants an overt discussion, including of its impact on the rights-experience of persons in psychiatric settings.

This paper highlights the need to apply an equity lens when assessing the impact of preemption and related legal doctrines on community health. Community autonomy to set and pursue public health priorities is an essential part of achieving health equity. Unfortunately, the priorities of organized industry interest groups often conflict with health equity goals. These groups have a history of successfully using law to limit community autonomy to pursue public health measures, most notably through preemption and related legal doctrines. We examine this phenomenon using two examples. First, we look at dental association efforts to block the spread of dental therapists in Indian Country. Native dental therapists have been improving the oral health of native people in Alaska for over a decade; yet the national and state dental associations have sought with mixed success to leverage state and federal laws to hinder other tribal governments from utilizing these providers. We compare these efforts with a restaurant association-led movement to limit what municipal governments can do to address food-based health inequities, focusing on a “model” ALEC bill that started in Ohio. Finally, we discuss how municipalities and Tribes are fighting back and continuing to pursue health equity for their communities.

Stigma can lead to poor health outcomes. At the same time, people who are perceived as unhealthy may experience stigma as the result of that perception. As part of a larger project examining discrimination on the basis of health status or “healthism,” we explore the role of stigma in producing disadvantage based on health status. Specifically, we look to the principles of health equality and health justice. An intervention violates health equality when it is driven by animus, which can be the result of stigma. Additionally, laws and policies offend health justice when they worsen health outcomes or they create or deepen health disparities. An intervention that produces stigma — whether intentionally or unintentionally — may offend health justice by making people worse off, in absolute or in comparative terms. Stigma-related health laws and policies can therefore be healthist in at least two ways. We therefore conclude that stigma should neither be the basis, nor the product, of efforts to improve health.

This article argues that teenagers become fully capable of consenting to participation in most IRB-approved research involving human subjects at age 14, four years earlier than they are allowed to consent under virtually all states' laws, and, consequently, four years younger than they are able to consent under currently applicable federal regulations. In determining the age at which person is old enough to have decision-making authority, legal institutions look at the intellectual and emotional maturity of someone of the age of the decision-maker, the risks and benefits of allowing the decision to be made by someone of that age, and the risks and benefits of denying a person of that age the authority to make the decision. Given the high level of safety of participating in IRB approved research, the value of doing so for both the society and the teenage subject, and the psychological and neuropsychological research on the specific nature of emotional and intellectual development during the teen years, the balance comes out in favor of allowing younger teens, by the age of 14, authority to consent to participate as subjects in IRB approved research. The current process requiring both teen assent and parental permission should give way to a process that requires only a teen's consent.

This paper discusses recent changes to state legal frameworks for mandatory vaccination in the context of school and healthcare worker vaccination. It then discusses state laws that allow pharmacists the authority to vaccinate.

Given the profound public health and economic ramifications of decisions made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the degree to which FDA activities should reflect an approach founded on complete transparency versus one focused on preserving confidentiality of information deserves public discussion. On one hand, reasonable requirements for transparency are critical to stimulating effective innovation, knowledge dissemination, and good business practice. On the other, ensuring the vitality of the medical products industry requires protecting legitimately proprietary information. With current standards reflecting a lengthy accumulation of legal, regulatory, and practical precedent, recent significant changes in the environment in which the FDA operates should prompt a critical examination of current practices. In this article, I comment on Sharfstein and colleagues’ “Blueprint for Transparency,” which calls for multiple specific actions to increase transparency at the agency across five key areas, including interactions between FDA and industry, public disclosure of internal FDA analyses, deliberations concerning generics and biosimilars, expanded access to raw study data, and approaches to countering misleading information in the public sphere. I evaluate these recommendations in light of my experience as a clinician, researcher, and former FDA Commissioner, and reflect on possible outcomes that could result from enacting these practices.