This special issue of the Journal Law, Medicine & Ethics takes up the concern of informed consent, particularly in times of controversy. The dominant moral dilemmas that frame traditional bioethical concerns address medical experimentation on vulnerable subjects; physicians assisting their patients in suicide or euthanasia; scarce resource allocation and medical futility; human trials to develop drugs; organ and tissue donation; cloning; xenotransplantation; abortion; human enhancement; mandatory vaccination; and much more. The term “bioethics” provides a lens, language, and guideposts to the study of medical ethics. It is worth noting, however, that medical experimentation is neither new nor exclusive to one country. Authors in this issue address thorny subjects that span borders and patients: from matters dealing with children and vaccination to the language and perception of consent.

Although Canada has not yet enacted any biobanking-specific privacy law, guidance and oversight are provided via various federal and provincial health and privacy-related laws as well as via ethics and policy documents. The primary policy document governing health research, the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, provides the framework for the strong role of Research Ethics Boards in Canada, and limits research funding from Canada's three main federal funding agencies to those who agree to adhere to its policies. The broad consent model is gaining traction in Canada, although lack of legal and constitutional precedence for the broad consent or opt-out options makes this an evolving issue. In general, data is required to be coded; more specific security measures are outlined in guidelines that may be implemented by local policy. International sharing is allowed, and Canada meets the European Union's standards for receipt of data and samples.

Newborn screening has evolved to include an increasingly complex spectrum of diseases, raising concerns that screening should be optional and require parental consent. Early detection of disorders like PKU and MCAD is essential to prevent serious disability and death in affected children. These are examples of high benefit-risk ratio disorders because of the irrefutable health benefits of early detection, coupled with the low risks of treatment. The dire consequences of not diagnosing an infant with a treatable disorder because of parental refusal to screen are wholly unacceptable. Thus, we believe that newborn screening for disorders with high benefit-risk ratios should continue to be mandatory.

Estonia is a democratic, parliamentary republic with a health care system that is built on the principle of compulsory, solidarity-based insurance and the all-round availability of services of private service providers. Estonia has specific biobank legislation as well as oversight via data protection laws. Its population-based biobank, the Estonian Genome Center (EGCUT), established in 2001, is one of the largest biobanks in Europe, and its database may be used only for scientific research, public health research, and statistics. The EGCUT can issue data to a third party, but only in coded form. This comprehensive database of genotypic, phenotypic, health, and genealogical information represents about 5% of Estonia's adult population, and is the largest cohort ever gathered in Estonia. Government approval is required for international data sharing, and sharing can be further limited by the requirement of ethics approval and permission from Estonian government.

We provide an overview of the characteristics of those who have gained insurance coverage due to the ACA as well as the characteristics of the remaining uninsured. We also describe the implications for the broader sharing of health care risks required under the law, and how they vary by individuals' health status. Finally, we assess the implications of state decisions to expand or not expand Medicaid eligibility under the law, how those decisions affect state finances, health care providers, residents, and how the effects may vary for those states using waivers to expand eligibility using strategies designed to be more broadly politically acceptable.

This article discusses an interdisciplinary and community-engaged public health law course that was developed as part of The Future of Public Health Law Education faculty fellowship program. Law and public health students worked collaboratively to assist a local health department in preparing for the law-related aspects of Public Health Accreditation Board review.

It is the researcher's responsibility to provide accurate, complete, and unbiased verbal and written information yet, as this essay discusses, challenges to meaningful research consent abound in the communication between researcher and subject. This discussion of these challenges is far from exhaustive, but it will flag some of the potholes that researchers must anticipate on the sometimes rocky road to eliciting meaningful consent. These include, but are not limited to, inadequate scientific literacy, poorly written consent forms, and even the deployment of scientific terms and seductive acronyms like CURE and MIRACL. Studies with acronyms, for example, enroll five times as many patients as those without, are more likely to be published by prestigious journals, and have higher Jadad methodologic quality scores although they are no more likely to conclude with positive findings. Other barriers to researcher-subject communication include: widely differing beliefs and customs, semiotics, socioeconomic status, iatrophobia, and dramatically different histories of treatment in the medical-research arena.

This fellowship project addressed the need to increase diversity in public health law. Non-traditional delivery methods of education, such as synchronous online classes and offering courses during an intersession between regular semesters and in the evenings, expanded the opportunities for diverse students to learn about the field and have meaningful internship experiences in public health law. Synchronous distance education is the wave of the future for law teaching and has particular significance in the teaching of public health law.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an essential first step toward making health insurance more affordable for lower and moderate income Americans. It has accomplished historic reductions in the proportion of Americans who are uninsured. The number of Americans reporting delaying medical care for financial reasons has declined by approximately one-third since 2010. Medicaid expansions, in particular, have significantly reduced financial burdens and accompanying anxieties experienced by low-income Americans in states that have embraced this opportunity. Consistent with these finding, one recent analysis of credit report data finds that Medicaid expansion was associated with between a $600 and $1000 decline in collection balances among individuals who gained coverage. Notwithstanding these gains, premiums and cost-sharing are still too high for many Americans. And cost-sharing has continued to edge higher for the majority of Americans who have coverage through employer-based plans. Measures to address these challenges must build on the ACA to provide greater protection to millions of Americans and to address continued dissatisfaction with our health care financing system among middle-income Americans.

Over-enthusiastic newborn screening has often caused substantial harm and has been imposed on the public without adequate information on benefits and risks and without parental consent. This problem will become worse when genomic screening is implemented. For the past 40 years, there has been broad agreement about the criteria for ethically responsible screening, but the criteria have been systematically ignored by policy makers and practitioners. Claims of high benefit and low risk are common, but they require precise definition and documentation, which has often not occurred, undermining claims that involuntary testing is justified. Even when the benefits and risks are well established, it does not automatically follow that involuntary testing is justified, a position supported by the widespread tolerance for parental refusal of immunizations and newborn screening.

Finland has aimed to make itself an international leader in genomic research and related business and, in working towards that goal, has enacted biobank legislation. The Biobank Act requires biobanks to gain approval, be supervised, and register at the national level. Numerous other laws may also apply in any given research setting, such as the Personal Data Act, the Medical Research Act, and the Act on Medical Use of Human Organs and Tissues. In terms of privacy protection, anonymization is generally not permitted under Finnish law and therefore most biobanks pseudonomize data and samples. However, the broad understanding of what is identifiable data in Finland has created difficulties in sharing with non-EU countries. Furthermore, consent to biobank research is only applicable to the sample and related data, not to data stored in other health-related registries, and consent is only to the field of research for that particular biobank. These restrictions impede the sharing of samples and data for research.

A central principle of bioethics is “subject autonomy,” the acknowledgement of the primacy of the informed consent of the subject of research. Autonomy requires informed consent — the assurance that the research participant is informed about the possible risks and benefits of the research. In fact, informed consent is difficult when a single drug is being tested, although subjects have a baseline understanding of the testing of a pharmacological agent and the understanding that they can stop taking the drug if there were an adverse event. However, informed consent is even less easily achieved in the modern arena of complex new molecular and cellular therapies. In this article, we argue that as science confronts new issues such as transplantation of stem cell products, which may live within the participant for the rest of their lives, researchers must carefully consider and constantly re-examine how they properly inform subjects considering participation trials of these novel therapeutic strategies.

For example, the manufacture of a vial of a cell product that consists of a collection of growing cells is very different than the production of a vial of identical pills, which can be presumed to be identical. The scientific concepts on which these cellular approaches are based may seem alien and incomprehensible to a research subject, who thinks of a clinical trial as simply the selection and testing of the most efficacious pharmaceutical agent already proven to work in preclinical animal studies. The research subject would be wrong.