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.
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.
Dr Jeannie P. Cimiotti joins Ethics Talk to discuss her article, coauthored with Drs Kimberly Adams Tufts, Lucia D. Wocial, and Elizabeth Peter: “How Should Focus Be Shifted From Individual Preference to Collective Wisdom for Patients at the End of Life With Antimicrobial-Resistant Infections?”
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.
Sheldon Zink, PhD, Rachel Zeehandelaar, and Stacey Wertlieb, MBe
The benefits of the international presumed-consent policy are presented as a solution to the United States' current shortage of organs available for transplantation.
Alcoholics should not be subject to deprioritization on a liver transplant waiting list if the belief is held that alcoholism is a disease and not an issue of moral failure for which the patient should be blamed.
Preventing bad outcomes for teens and their offspring was the impetus behind confidential care for reproductive health. Requiring parental involvement created an obstacle to the provision of necessary care.