The Scholarly and Pedagogical Benefits of the Legal Laboratory: Lessons from the Consortium for the Advanced Study of Brain Injury at Yale Law School.

In our article, we share the lessons we have learned after creating and running a successful legal laboratory over the past seven years at Yale Law School. Our legal laboratory, which focuses on the intersection of law and severe brain injury, represents a unique pedagogical model for legal academia, and is closely influenced by the biomedical laboratory.

Holding Medical Professional Society Scientific Meetings Only in States That Protect Abortion Rights-Clinical and Ethical Considerations.

This Viewpoint suggests that professional societies should continue to advocate for equitable access for patients to all necessary medical care including abortion care.

Legislation restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth: Politics eclipse healthcare.

In the past two years, in 25 US states, bills have been introduced to restrict access to gender-affirming medical care for minors. Some have already become law. We show how these bills, while purporting to "protect" trans youth, are really an assault on their ability, along with their parents' and physicians', to make healthcare choices and to receive medically necessary care. We discuss the evidence-based guidelines for the care of these patients, the positions taken by major medical societies against these bills, and the landscape of legal challenges that are being brought against these enacted laws.

Which Legal Approaches Help Limit Harms to Patients From Clinicians' Conscience-Based Refusals?

This article canvasses laws protecting clinicians' conscience and focuses on dilemmas that occur when a clinician refuses to perform a procedure consistent with the standard of care. In particular, the article focuses on patients' experience with a conscientiously objecting clinician at a secular institution, where patients are least likely to expect conscience-based care restrictions. After reviewing existing laws that protect clinicians' conscience, the article discusses limited legal remedies available to patients.

Understanding the Role of Law in Reducing Firearm Injury through Clinical Interventions.

Firearm injury in the United States is a public health crisis in which physicians are uniquely situated to intervene. However, their ability to mitigate harm is limited by a complex array of laws and regulations that shape their role in firearm injury prevention. This piece uses four clinical scenarios to illustrate how these laws and regulations impact physician practice, including patient counseling, injury reporting, and the use of court orders and involuntary holds. Unintended consequences on clinical practice of laws intended to reduce firearm injury are also discussed. Lessons drawn from these cases suggest that physicians require more nuanced education on this topic, and that policymakers should consult front-line healthcare providers when designing firearm policies.

The "Rules of the Road": Ethics, Firearms, and the Physician's "Lane".

Physicians play a critical role in preventing and treating firearm injury, although the scope of that role remains contentious and lacks systematic definition. This piece aims to utilize the fundamental principles of medical ethics to present a framework for physician involvement in firearm violence. Physicians' agency relationship with their patients creates ethical obligations grounded on three principles of medical ethics - patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Taken together, they suggest that physicians ought to engage in clinical screening and treatment related to firearm violence. The principle of beneficence also applies more generally, but more weakly, to relations between physicians and society, creating nonobligatory moral ideals. Balanced against physicians' primary obligations to patient agency relationships, general beneficence suggests that physicians may engage in public advocacy to address gun violence, although they are not ethically obligated to do so. A fourth foundational principle - justice - requires that clinicians attempt to ensure that the benefits and burdens of healthcare are distributed fairly.

Treatment of heritable diseases using CRISPR: Hopes, fears, and reality.

CRISPR gene editing is poised to transform the therapeutic landscape for diseases of genetic origin. The ease and agility by which CRISPR can make specific changes to DNA holds great promise not only for the treatment of heritable diseases, but also their prevention through germline editing. CRISPR-based therapeutic strategies are currently under development for numerous monogenic diseases. These strategies range from proof of concept studies demonstrating pre-fertilization gamete editing to recently initiated clinical trials for postnatal ex vivo therapies. The promise of CRISPR's human genome editing potential has captivated the public's attention. It is of paramount importance that medical professionals who work with patients who may have or carry a monogenic heritable disease understand CRISPR technology in order to have informed and compassionate discussions with their patients. Understanding CRISPR means understanding its evolving therapeutic applications' nuances, limitations, and barriers to access as well as the regulatory landscape they inhabit. In this piece we provide a review of the promises and pitfalls of CRISPR germline gene editing and their implications for patient decision-making throughout various stages of the reproductive process.

CRISPR diagnostics: Underappreciated uses in perinatology.

CRISPR-based therapeutics have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of hereditary diseases, but current efforts to translate research to the bedside face significant technical, regulatory, and ethical hurdles. In this article, we discuss an underappreciated application of CRISPR: diagnostic testing, and argue that: (1) CRISPR diagnostics are poised to disrupt diagnostic practices including perinatal screening and (2) since CRISPR diagnostics pose minimal technical, regulatory and ethical hurdles (unlike CRISPR therapeutic uses) they are likely to be clinically relevant before CRISPR-based therapies, and thus warrant medical community's attention.

Medical-Legal Partnership: Lessons from Five Diverse MLPs in New Haven, Connecticut.

This article examines five different Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) associated with Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut to illustrate how MLP addresses the social determinants of poor health. These MLPs address varied and distinct health and legal needs of unique patient populations, including: 1) children; 2) immigrants; 3) formerly incarcerated individuals; 4) patients with cancer in palliative care; and 5) veterans. The article charts a research agenda to create the evidence base for quality and evaluation metrics, capacity building, sustainability, and best practices; it also focuses specifically on a research agenda that identifies the value of the lawyers in MLP. Such a focus on the "L" has been lacking and is overdue.