Arguments are examined for and against the ethics of allowing U.S. armed services to attempt to recruit financially vulnerable students on medical school campuses.
The physician's duty to provide emergency treatment to combatants on both sides in an armed conflict persists, even in the context of today's asymmetrical warfare where not everyone plays by the rules.
The physician's duty to provide emergency treatment to combatants on both sides in an armed conflict persists, even in the context of today's asymmetrical warfare where not everyone plays by the rules.
Raphael P. Viscidi, MD and Keerti V. Shah, MD, DrPH
The arguments for mandatory vaccination with human papillomavirus vaccine differs from the justification for mandatory use of vaccines that protect against more easily transmitted diseases.
Article explains the right granted to state public health agencies by the Supreme Court in Jacobson v Massachusetts to mandate vaccination in the presence of actual or threatened danger to the health of its residents from infectious disease.
A landmark court case in California determined that a competent adult patient has the right to forgo medical treatment and the patient's autonomy supersedes the state's interest in preserving the patient's life.
Clinical trials for the blood substitute PolyHeme exposed the possibility for ambiguous interpretation of the FDA’s waiver of informed consent for emergency research.
The ongoing anthrax vaccination case, Doe v Rumsfeld, tests whether the military can require participation in and punish refusal of a vaccination program while waiving informed consent.