Utah flouts FDA with new placental stem cell law.

Measure declares that patients can be given unapproved treatments.

How Indigenous communities in New Zealand are protecting their data.

Concerns about the ethical use of data, privacy, and data harms are front of mind in many jurisdictions as regulators move to impose tighter controls on data privacy and protection, and the use of artificial intelligence (AI). Although efforts to hold corporations to account for their deployment of data and data-driven technologies have been largely welcomed by academics and civil society, there is a growing recognition of the limits to individual data rights, given the capacity of tech giants to link, surveil, target, and make inferences about groups. Questions about whether collective data rights exist, and how they can be recognized and protected, have provided fertile ground for researchers but have yet to penetrate the broader discourse on data rights and regulation.

Navigating the Litigation Experience.

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry whose practitioners are responsible for adhering to laws, regulations, policies, and standards of care. When poor outcomes occur, a malpractice case can arise, thus beginning the litigation process. Because nurses are leaders in the delivery of care, they may become involved in legal claims. The purpose of this article is to provide information, as a foundation for nurses who are unfamiliar with navigating the litigation process in a legal claim, and to help nurses build confidence in the process. An overview of the litigation process, nursing licensure, and essential legal terms is provided. A case scenario is introduced that addresses the role of a nurse in an orthopaedic medical malpractice case.

Adolescent Δ8-THC and Marijuana Use in the US.

Importance: Gummies, flavored vaping devices, and other cannabis products containing psychoactive hemp-derived Δ8-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are increasingly marketed in the US with claims of being federally legal and comparable to marijuana. National data on prevalence and correlates of Δ8-THC use and comparisons to marijuana use among adolescents in the US are lacking. Objective: To estimate the self-reported prevalence of and sociodemographic and policy factors associated with Δ8-THC and marijuana use among US adolescents in the past 12 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nationally representative cross-sectional analysis included a randomly selected subset of 12th-grade students in 27 US states who participated in the Monitoring the Future Study in-school survey during February to June 2023. Exposures: Self-reported sex, race, ethnicity, and parental education; census region; state-level adult-use (ie, recreational) marijuana legalization (yes vs no); and state-level Δ8-THC policies (regulated vs not regulated). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported Δ8-THC and marijuana use in the past 12 months (any vs no use and number of occasions used). Results: In the sample of 2186 12th-grade students (mean age, 17.7 years; 1054 [48.9% weighted] were female; 232 [11.1%] were Black, 411 [23.5%] were Hispanic, 1113 [46.1%] were White, and 328 [14.2%] were multiracial), prevalence of self-reported use in the past 12 months was 11.4% (95% CI, 8.6%-14.2%) for Δ8-THC and 30.4% (95% CI, 26.5%-34.4%) for marijuana. Of those 295 participants reporting Δ8-THC use, 35.4% used it at least 10 times in the past 12 months. Prevalence of Δ8-THC use was lower in Western vs Southern census regions (5.0% vs 14.3%; risk difference [RD], -9.4% [95% CI, -15.2% to -3.5%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 0.35 [95% CI, 0.16-0.77]), states in which Δ8-THC was regulated vs not regulated (5.7% vs 14.4%; RD, -8.6% [95% CI, -12.9% to -4.4%]; aRR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.74]), and states with vs without legal adult-use marijuana (8.0% vs 14.0%; RD, -6.0% [95% CI, -10.8% to -1.2%]; aRR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.35-0.91]). Use in the past 12 months was lower among Hispanic than White participants for Δ8-THC (7.3% vs 14.4%; RD, -7.2% [95% CI, -12.2% to -2.1%]; aRR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34-0.87]) and marijuana (24.5% vs 33.0%; RD, -8.5% [95% CI, -14.9% to -2.1%]; aRR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.59-0.94]). Δ8-THC and marijuana use prevalence did not differ by sex or parental education. Conclusions and Relevance: Δ8-THC use prevalence is appreciable among US adolescents and is higher in states without marijuana legalization or existing Δ8-THC regulations. Prioritizing surveillance, policy, and public health efforts addressing adolescent Δ8-THC use may be warranted.