The Real Impact of the Alabama Supreme Court Decision in LePage v Center for Reproductive Medicine.

This Viewpoint breaks down the myriad ways the Alabama Supreme Court decision to declare frozen embryos as legal equivalents to children harms the health of mothers and fetuses, limits reproductive decision-making based on genetics and out-of-reach costs, and impedes research.

Ethical Challenges of Advances in Vaccine Delivery Technologies.

Strategies to address misinformation and hesitancy about vaccines, including the fear of needles, and to overcome obstacles to access, such as the refrigeration that some vaccines demand, strongly suggest the need to develop new vaccine delivery technologies. But, given widespread distrust surrounding vaccination, these new technologies must be introduced to the public with the utmost transparency, care, and community involvement. Two emerging technologies, one a skin-patch vaccine and the other a companion dye and detector, provide excellent examples of greatly improved delivery technologies for which such a careful approach should be developed in order to increase vaccine uptake. Defusing fears and conspiracy mongering must be a key part of their rollout.

Regaining Trust in Public Health and Biomedical Science following Covid: The Role of Scientists.

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement.

Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Are We What We Eat? The Moral Imperative of the Medical Profession to Promote Plant-Based Nutrition.

The typical Western diet, high in processed and animal-based foods, is nutritionally and ethically problematic. Beyond the well-documented cruelty to animals that characterizes the practices of the factory-farming industry, current patterns of meat consumption contribute to medical and moral harm in humans on both an individual level and a public health scale. We aim to deconstruct, by highlighting their fallacies, the common positive and normative arguments that are used to defend current nutritional patterns. Animal-based foods promote the mechanisms that underlie chronic cardiometabolic disease, whereas whole-food plant-based nutrition can reverse them. Factory farming of animals also contributes to climate change, antibiotic resistance, and the spread of infectious diseases. Finally, the current allocation of nutritional resources in the United States is unjust. A societal shift toward more whole-food plant-based patterns of eating stands to provide significant health benefits and ethical advantages, and the medical profession has a duty to advocate accordingly. Although it remains important for individuals to make better food choices to promote their own health, personal responsibility is predicated on sound advice and on resource equity, including the availability of healthy options. Nutrition equity is a moral imperative and should be a top priority in the promotion of public health.

Emerging technologies and ethics-exogenic chimeric humanized organs.

Organ transplantation is limited due to the scarcity of donor organs. In order to expand the supply of organs for transplantation, interspecies chimeras have been examined as a potential future source of humanized organs. Recent studies using gene editing technologies in combination with somatic cell nuclear transfer technology and hiPSCs successfully engineered humanized skeletal muscle in the porcine embryo. As these technologies progress, there are ethical issues that warrant consideration and dialogue.

Evaluating Expanded Noninvasive Prenatal Screening.

Public attention has been drawn recently to the commercial availability of noninvasive prenatal screening for rare genetic conditions, despite estimates that the positive predictive value of such tests is low. Many have focused on the importance of educating patients on the difference between screening and diagnostic testing so that they are adequately prepared for the possibility of a false-positive result. Even so, we question whether expanded noninvasive prenatal screening is ready to be used a screening tool. We argue that established public health criteria for evaluating the risks and benefits of a screening tool should be applied to expanded noninvasive prenatal screening. If a test fails to meet accepted standards, governmental agencies should consider regulating the accuracy and promotional claims of commercially available tests.

Virtual surgical planning and data ownership: Navigating the provider-patient-vendor relationship.

The practice of modern craniomaxillofacial surgery has been defined by emergent technologies allowing for the acquisition, storage, utilization, and transfer of massive amounts of sensitive and identifiable patient data. This alone has thrust providers into an unlikely and unprecedented role as the stewards of vast databases of digital information. This data powers the potent surgical tool of virtual surgical planning, a method by which craniomaxillofacial surgeons plan and simulate procedural outcomes in a digital environment. Further complicating this new terrain is the involvement of third-party contractors-a necessary presence in bringing raw data to bear in the office, virtual space, and operating room. The individual privileges and responsibilities of patients, providers, and vendors towards data are situated within the most recent U.S. court rulings and regulations. This paper offers guidance for overseeing the safe and responsible transfer to third-party contractors, and provides suggestions for negotiating the trinary relationship between physicians, their patients, and the vendors offering this transformative technology.

Priority vaccination for mental illness, developmental or intellectual disability.

Coronavirus vaccines have made their debut. Now, allocation practices have stepped into the spotlight. Following Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, states and healthcare institutions initially prioritised healthcare personnel and elderly residents of congregant facilities; other groups at elevated risk for severe complications are now becoming eligible through locally administered programmes. The question remains, however: who else should be prioritised for immunisation? Here, we call attention to individuals institutionalised with severe mental illnesses and/or developmental or intellectual disabilities-a group highly susceptible to the damages of COVID-19, recent research shows, and critical to consider for priority vaccination. The language describing both federal-level and state-level intentions for this population remains largely vague, despite the population's diversity across age, diagnosis, functional status and living arrangement. Such absence of specificity, in turn, leaves room for confusion and even neglect of various subgroups. We review data stressing this group's vulnerability, as well as select state plans for priority vaccination, highlighting the importance of clarity when describing intentions to vaccinate, or even generally care for, diverse populations composed of distinct subgroups in need.

Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Covid-19 and Vaccines Among a New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish Community.

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the difficulty of the US public health system to respond effectively to vulnerable subpopulations, causing disproportionate rates of morbidity and mortality. New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish communities represent a group that have been heavily impacted by Covid-19. Little research has examined their experience or perceptions toward Covid-19 and vaccines. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study to explore the experience of Covid-19 among Haredim. Paper surveys were self-administered between December 2020 and January 2021 in Haredi neighborhood pediatricians' offices in Brooklyn, New York. Of 102 respondents, 43% reported either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral or antibody test. Participants trusted their physicians, Orthodox medical organizations, and rabbinic leaders for medical information. Knowledge of Covid-19 transmission and risk was good (69% answered ≥ 4/6 questions correctly). Only 12% of respondents would accept a Covid-19 vaccine, 41% were undecided and 47% were strongly hesitant. Independent predictors of strong vaccine hesitancy included believing natural infection to be better than vaccination for developing immunity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-14.86), agreement that prior infection provides a path toward resuming communal life (aOR 4.10; 95% CI 1.22-13.77), and pandemic-related loss of trust in physicians (aOR 5.01; 95% CI 1.05-23.96). The primary disseminators of health information for self-protective religious communities should be stakeholders who understand these groups' unique health needs. In communities with significant Covid-19 experience, vaccination messaging may need to be tailored toward protecting infection-naïve individuals and boosting natural immunity against emerging variants.