The Need for Historical Fluency in Pandemic Law and Policy.

The primary claim of this essay is that historical fluency is required for effective work in crafting legal and policy interventions as a part of public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR). At a broad level, public health law is explicitly recognized as a key systems-level component of PHEPR practice.1 This essay therefore focuses on the extent to which historical fluency is necessary or at least useful to all aspects of PHEPR that draw on or deploy legal and policy mechanisms (e.g., design, planning, implementation, dissemination, monitoring and evaluation, etc.). The essay collectively refers to these legal and policy mechanisms as epidemic law and policy response (ELAPR). Part I explains the concept of historical fluency. Part II explores the foundations of public health law both as a way of highlighting key structural features of ELAPR and in supporting the claim that historical fluency is critical for ELAPR. Part III applies the previous arguments to a specific case study to highlight the promise and power of historical fluency - the outbreak of bubonic plague in San Francisco in 1900. Tracking this essay's pragmatic focus, part IV offers several recommendations for how specifically historical fluency in public health law and ethics can be operationalized in PHEPR practice and policy. Part V summarizes and concludes.

Integrating Public Health Ethics into Public Health Policymaking: Being in the Room Where It Happens.

This commentary takes up a challenge posed by Franklin Miller in a 2022 essay in Bioethics Forum. Dr. Miller queried whether bioethicists could be useful in public health policy contexts and while he refrained from issuing an ultimate opinion, did identify several challenges to such utility. The current piece responds to the challenges Dr. Miller identifies and argues that with appropriate training, public health ethicists can be of service in virtually any context in which public health policies are deliberated and decided.

The Perils of Medicalization for Population Health and Health Equity.

Policy Points Medicalization is a historical process by which personal, behavioral, and social issues are increasingly viewed through a biomedical lens and "diagnosed and treated" as individual pathologies and problems by medical authorities. Medicalization in the United States has led to a conflation of "health" and "health care" and a confusion between individual social needs versus the social, political, and economic determinants of health. The essential and important work of population health science, public health practice, and health policy writ large is being thwarted by a medicalized view of health and an overemphasis on personal health services and the health care delivery system as the major focal point for addressing societal health issues and health inequality. Increased recognition of the negative consequences of a medicalized view of health is essential, with a focus on education and training of clinicians and health care managers, journalists, and policymakers.

Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice.

If funding allocation is an indicator of a field's priorities, then the priorities of the field of bioethics are misaligned because they perpetuate injustice. Social justice mandates priority for the factors that drive systematic disadvantage, which tend not to be the areas supported by funding within academic bioethics. Current funding priorities violate social justice by overemphasizing technologies that aim to enhance the human condition without addressing underlying structural inequalities grounded in racism, and by deemphasizing areas of inquiry most frequently pursued by Scholars of Color. This lack of attention to upstream determinants of health in bioethics research perpetuates a gap in the resources needed to understand the experiences of communities disproportionately experiencing poor health, which is itself a form of epistemic injustice. Both social and epistemic injustices are apparent in the impact of these funding priorities on people of color, both in the public and in the bioethics community.

INTRODUCTION: Investigating Malingering and Public Policy Through an Interdisciplinary Working Group.

This Introduction frames the context of the interdisciplinary working group that examined the role of malingering in health and social policy in 2019-2020. The Symposium Issue here is the result of the group's time, energy, and analysis.

Doubt & Social Policy: The Long History of Malingering in Modern Welfare States.

This essay explores the long Western history of anxieties about feigned illness connected specifically to social policy. There is a remarkable consistency of such anxieties across time, as they appear in almost every major historical period in the West since the Middle Ages.

Toward Complete, Candid, and Unbiased International Consensus Statements on Concussion in Sport.

Five international consensus statements on concussion in sports have been published. This commentary argues that there is a strong need for a new approach to them that foregrounds public health expertise and patient-centered guidance. Doing so will help players, parents and practitioners keep perspective about these potentially life-altering injuries especially when they recur.

Duties When an Anonymous Student Health Survey Finds a Hot Spot of Suicidality.

Public health agencies regularly survey randomly selected anonymous students to track drug use, sexual activities, and other risk behaviors. Students are unidentifiable, but a recent project that included school-level analysis discovered a school with alarmingly prevalent student suicidality. Given confidentiality protocols typical of surveillance, the surveyors were uncertain whether and how to intervene. We searched literature for duties to warn at-risk groups discovered during public health surveillance, but we found no directly applicable guidance or cases. Reasoning by analogy, we conclude that surveyors should contact the school's leaders to call attention to its outlier status, but public warning is unwarranted. However, such an ad hoc decision to issue a warning, even if only to school leaders, raises significant practical, legal and ethical issues. National public health and education associations should produce guidance that clarifies ethical and legal duties owed to schools and students involved in population health-risk surveillance.

Financial Conflicts of Interest are of Higher Ethical Priority than "Intellectual" Conflicts of Interest.

The primary claim of this paper is that intellectual conflicts of interest (COIs) exist but are of lower ethical priority than COIs flowing from relationships between health professionals and commercial industry characterized by financial exchange. The paper begins by defining intellectual COIs and framing them in the context of scholarship on non-financial COIs. However, the paper explains that the crucial distinction is not between financial and non-financial COIs but is rather between motivations for bias that flow from relationships and those that do not. While commitments to particular ideas or perspectives can cause all manner of cognitive bias, that fact does not justify denying the enormous power that relationships featuring pecuniary gain have on professional behaviour in term of care, policy, or both. Sufficient reason exists to take both intellectual COIs and financial COIs seriously, but this paper demonstrates why the latter is of higher ethical priority. Multiple reasons will be provided, but the primary rationale grounding the claim is that intellectual COIs may provide reasons to suspect cognitive bias but they do not typically involve a loss of trust in a social role. The same cannot be said for COIs flowing from relationships between health professionals and commercial industries involving financial exchange. The paper then assumes arguendo that the primary rationale is mistaken and proceeds to show why the claims that intellectual COIs are more significant than relationship-based COIs are dubious on their own merits. The final section of the paper summarizes and concludes.

Toward Fair and Humane Pain Policy.

Pain policy is not drug policy. If society wants to improve the lives of people in pain and compress the terrible inequalities in its diagnosis and treatment, we have to tailor policy to the root causes driving our problems in treating pain humanely and equitably. In the United States, we do not. Instead, we have proceeded to conflate drug policy with pain policy, relying on arguably magical thinking for the conclusion that by addressing the drug overdose crisis, we are simultaneously addressing the pain crisis. This is a category error, decades of commitment to which have resulted mostly in a worsening of both public health problems. Disentangling our problems in treating pain fairly and equitably from our problems with drugs and substance use is the only path to humane and ethical policy for each.

Advancing shared decision making for symptom monitoring in people living beyond cancer.

Wellbeing after successful cancer treatment depends on more than merely reducing the risk of disease recurrence. Cancer survival can be characterised by uncertainty, fear, and the interpretation of bodily sensations as potentially symptomatic of cancer recurrence. This fear can lead to over-vigilance about bodily sensations and precautionary visits to the doctor, both of which can increase the chance of early detection but can also increase anxiety and decrease quality of life. In this Personal View, we consider the medical, psychological, and ethical issues related to the practice of self-directed symptom monitoring after completion of cancer treatment, focusing on the role of doctor-patient communication. We ask how clinicians can account for the plurality of values that patients might have when it comes to deciding on how to manage and respond to experiences of post-cancer symptoms. We advocate a shared decision-making approach that incorporates the assessment of an individual's cancer recurrence risks as well as psychosocial considerations regarding fear of cancer recurrence and mental health. We aim to raise awareness of the potential quality-of-life implications of symptom-monitoring practices, emphasising the need for a balance between physical and psychological health in people living beyond cancer.

Introduction: Living with Pain in the Midst of the Opioid Crisis.

This symposium includes twelve personal narratives from individuals impacted by the current opioid crisis. Three commentaries on these narratives are also included, authored by four experts-three scholars in the field of bioethics and one nationally recognized science reporter and best-selling author. The goal of this symposium is to explore the personal impact of public discourse and recent policy about the opioid crisis on people living with chronic pain.