AI Chatbots, Health Privacy, and Challenges to HIPAA Compliance.

This Viewpoint examines the privacy concerns raised by medical uses of large language models, such as chatbots.

Holding Clinicians in Public Office Accountable to Professional Standards.

Clinicians using governing authority to make public health policy are ethically obliged to draw upon scientific and clinical information that accords with professional standards. Just as the First Amendment does not protect clinicians who provide advice that fails to express standard care, so it does not protect clinician-officials who offer information to the public that a reasonable official would not provide.

AI-Generated Medical Advice-GPT and Beyond.

This Viewpoint describes medical applications of generative pretrained transformers (GPTs) and related artificial intelligence (AI) technologies and considers whether new forms of regulation are necessary to minimize safety and legal risks to patients and clinicians.

Assuming Access to Professional Advice.

Access to reliable health advice can make the difference between life and death. But good advice is hard to come by. Within the confines of the professional-client or doctor-patient relationship, the First Amendment operates in a way that protects good and sanctions bad advice. Outside of this relationship, however, the traditional protections of the First Amendment prohibit content- and viewpoint discrimination. Good and bad advice are treated as equal. A core assumption of First Amendment theory is the autonomy of speakers and listeners. Another assumption, as this Article demonstrates in the health context, is the availability of access to professional advice. This assumption, however, is erroneous because access to health advice in fact is unevenly distributed.This Article argues that assuming access to professional advice creates indefensible inequality. Lack of access to expert advice puts some listeners at much higher risk than others. Current First Amendment doctrine is largely unproblematic for those who can afford expert advice, and makes expert advice much costlier where health provider access is needed to obtain good advice. Those who lack access must place a higher degree of trust in widely-available information because they have no more reliable alternative. In other words, First Amendment doctrine places a higher burden on those who can least afford expert advice and who are most dependent on experts in public discourse.

Antiandrogen or estradiol treatment or both during hormone therapy in transitioning transgender women.

BACKGROUND: Gender dysphoria is described as a mismatch between an individual's experienced or expressed gender and their assigned gender, based on primary or secondary sexual characteristics. Gender dysphoria can be associated with clinically significant psychological distress and may result in a desire to change sexual characteristics. The process of adapting a person's sexual characteristics to their desired sex is called 'transition.' Current guidelines suggest hormonal and, if needed, surgical intervention to aid transition in transgender women, i.e. persons who aim to transition from male to female. In adults, hormone therapy aims to reverse the body's male attributes and to support the development of female attributes. It usually includes estradiol, antiandrogens, or a combination of both. Many individuals first receive hormone therapy alone, without surgical interventions. However, this is not always sufficient to change such attributes as facial bone structure, breasts, and genitalia, as desired. For these transgender women, surgery may then be used to support transition. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of hormone therapy with antiandrogens, estradiol, or both, compared to each other or placebo, in transgender women in transition. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Biosis Preview, PsycINFO, and PSYNDEX. We carried out our final searches on 19 December 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies that enrolled transgender women, age 16 years and over, in transition from male to female. Eligible studies investigated antiandrogen and estradiol hormone therapies alone or in combination, in comparison to another form of the active intervention, or placebo control. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane to establish study eligibility. MAIN RESULTS: Our database searches identified 1057 references, and after removing duplicates we screened 787 of these. We checked 13 studies for eligibility at the full text screening stage. We excluded 12 studies and identified one as an ongoing study. We did not identify any completed studies that met our inclusion criteria. The single ongoing study is an RCT conducted in Thailand, comparing estradiol valerate plus cyproterone treatment with estradiol valerate plus spironolactone treatment. The primary outcome will be testosterone level at three month follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy or safety of hormonal treatment approaches for transgender women in transition. This lack of studies shows a gap between current clinical practice and clinical research. Robust RCTs and controlled cohort studies are needed to assess the benefits and harms of hormone therapy (used alone or in combination) for transgender women in transition. Studies should specifically focus on short-, medium-, and long-term adverse effects, quality of life, and participant satisfaction with the change in male to female body characteristics of antiandrogen and estradiol therapy alone, and in combination. They should also focus on the relative effects of these hormones when administered orally, transdermally, and intramuscularly. We will include non-controlled cohort studies in the next iteration of this review, as our review has shown that such studies provide the highest quality evidence currently available in the field. We will take into account methodological limitations when doing so.

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.

Methodische Anleitung für Scoping Reviews (JBI-Methodologie).

Reviews of primary research studies are becoming increasingly important as the concept of evidence-based practice in healthcare is gaining more and more influence and the number of research projects is increasing enormously. One of the less well-known types of review is the "scoping review." Scoping reviews are conducted when one first needs to take stock of the research literature. For example, scoping reviews are conducted in order to establish provisional working definitions or to define topics or subject areas conceptually. Preparing a scoping review also makes sense if the literature has not yet been comprehensively assessed or if it contains a complex or heterogeneous problem so that a more precise systematic review of the evidence is not appropriate. Scoping reviews can also serve to determine the scope and significance of a prospective classical systematic review. Finally, scoping reviews are also a good way to bundle and communicate research results, identify research gaps, and formulate recommendations for future research. This article explains the methodology of scoping reviews, their differences as compared to systematic reviews, and the reasons why they could be conducted. This guide to conducting scoping reviews is based on the methodology developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).

The Role of Civil Commitment in the Opioid Crisis.

This article seeks to shed light on civil commitment in the context of the opioid crisis, to sketch the existing legal landscape surrounding civil commitment, and to illustrate the relevant medical, ethical, and legal concerns that policymakers must take into account as they struggle to find appropriate responses to the crisis.

Physician Autonomy and the Opioid Crisis.

The scope and severity of the opioid epidemic in the United States has prompted significant legislative intrusion into the patient-physician relationship. These proscriptive regulatory regimes mirror earlier legislation in other politically-charged domains like abortion and gun regulation. We draw on lessons from those contexts to argue that states should consider integrating their responses to the epidemic with existing medical regulatory structures, making physicians partners rather than adversaries in addressing this public health crisis.

Professional Ethics, Personal Conscience, and Public Expectations.

Examining to what extent physicians are, or ought to be, defined by the profession when giving advice to patients, this commentary seeks to offer a better understanding of the potential conflicts that the American Medical Association's (AMA's) "Opinion 1.1.7, Physician Exercise of Conscience," addresses. This commentary conceptualizes the professions as knowledge communities, and situates the physician-patient relationship within this larger conceptual framework. So doing, it sheds light on how and when specialized knowledge is operationalized in professional advice-giving. Physicians communicate the knowledge community's insights to the patient. Thus, departures from professional knowledge as a matter of the professional's personal conscience are appropriately circumscribed by the knowledge community.