The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act introduces a novel regulatory category of “unacceptable risk,” prohibiting specific AI practices that are deemed fundamentally incompatible with human rights and ethical principles. While much attention has focused on the regulation of high-risk AI systems, particularly in medical contexts, the AI Act’s outright bans under Article 5 have received far less scrutiny. This paper addresses that gap by examining how these prohibitions apply to healthcare and public health, which are domains defined by rapid technological uptake, structural vulnerability, and ethically sensitive decision-making. Drawing on the European Commission’s 2025 interpretative Guidelines, the paper argues that several health-related AI applications, such as emotion recognition tools, biometric categorisation systems, and technologies that influence or target vulnerable populations, may fall within the scope of the bans. It also shows that the Act’s medical and safety exceptions risk weakening the vulnerability protections that the prohibitions aim to secure. By integrating legal analysis with real-world health examples, the paper offers a framework for interpreting these prohibitions and assesses how they should guide the ethical boundaries of AI in healthcare, within and beyond the European context.

This paper reports the results of an Australian qualitative study investigating the return of raw genomic data to research study participants. Increasing numbers of participants request access to their raw genomic data, although the legal position in relation to whether data should be returned lacks clarity, particularly in Australia. Interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved in two research studies where participants have undergone whole genome sequencing: ZERO Childhood Cancer, and the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative. Four major themes were identified: whether raw genomic data should be returned; reasons for seeking access; risks in returning data; and processes for return. Our findings indicate that health professionals, scientists, bioinformaticians, patients and patient advocates overwhelmingly support the return of raw data upon request, with ethical imperatives providing a strong basis for this support. Many stakeholders went on to stress the importance of adequate support for participants to ensure risks associated with the return of raw genomic data are minimized, including the provision of explanation and, where necessary, counselling and clinical advice. Our findings provide a basis for arguing that adequate resourcing must be built into research projects from the outset, given expected increases in participant demand for genomic data.

Honoring a patient’s wishes for end-of-life care can be challenging if the patient loses decision-making capacity and the identified alternate decision-maker will not respect the patient’s wishes. This article discusses how to proceed ethically and legally when the alternate decision-maker and care team disagree about respecting a patient’s end-of-life preferences.

Through emerging interpretations of individual “medical freedoms,” a panoply of state legislative bills seeks to undermine long-standing public health and health care requirements including recommendations to test, screen, treat, and vaccinate persons. To the extent these bills could upend decades of laws and policies protecting individual and communal health, especially among vulnerable individuals, they threaten the health — and freedoms — of all persons.

The use of restraint in hospital settings is divisive, and internationally there are calls for its elimination. However, this is at odds with the experience of many hospital staff, who consider restraint, at times, a “necessary evil”. In this paper, we explore the definition of restraint and potential ethical justifications for its use. We argue that the current ethical literature employs two definitions of restraint — outcome-oriented and intent-oriented — neither of which successfully captures all ethically relevant features of the practice. We propose a new conceptualization of restraint which centers on the number of individuals impacted by an act of patient restraint — a continuum between therapeutic restraint and public-safety restraint. Understood in this way, neither the principlist nor human rights frameworks that dominate the current literature are appropriate for assessing the ethical legitimacy of restraint. We suggest that, given the similarities between restraint and public health interventions, the use of public health ethics principles to consider the ethical justifiability of restraint in hospitals is a potentially productive way forward in this controversial area.

An involuntary commitment is a rights-restrictive procedure that is rarely afforded visibility through useful data. Pennsylvania is a nationally relevant case study on the promises, perils, and misconceptions surrounding involuntary commitment data. In this study, we survey the minimal available Pennsylvania data and then contextualize our results within state laws and norms by (1) framing involuntary commitment data within the state’s gun control agenda, (2) implementing the language of undone science, agnotology, and visibility, and (3) discussing the rights and social obligations surrounding privacy, confidentiality, and dangerousness. We find that sensitive administrative data is collected at several points during the involuntary commitment process but is rarely available in a useful, de-identified form. Improved access to useful data about the commitment population would close a major gap in state and national healthcare delivery, policy, and accountability.

The World Health Organization has declared 2021–2030 the “Decade of Healthy Ageing”, aiming for the best quality of life through health as the population ages. Beyond healthy ageing, scientists are adopting artificial intelligence technologies for longevity science which can foreseeably enable humans to routinely live to 120 years and beyond. With such breakthroughs within reach, the challenges associated with longevity need to be considered, from the impact on the social system to the possibility of an international law right to longevity, along with associated considerations such as on sustainability. This article questions whether there already is, or should be, an international human right to facilitate considerably extended lifespans, along with other relevant legal frameworks.

The rise of health care AI raises concerns over whether patent disclosure supports reproducibility and legal validity. This study analyzes 865 granted medical AI patents (2015–2025) from the US, China, and the EU using a five-dimensional framework (algorithm transparency, training data accessibility, model reproducibility, result verifiability, and mathematical support) implemented through NLP-assisted expert scoring. Results suggest limited technical transparency; approximately 40% of patents score zero in at least two dimensions. Performance varies significantly: algorithm transparency is relatively strong (>60% score 2), while training data accessibility is less prevalent (4.6% score 2) and mathematical support is frequently omitted (39.4% score 0). Statistical testing indicates US patents significantly outperform Chinese patents (p < 0.001), while EU results remain exploratory (N = 31, mean 6.2). These patterns appear associated with institutional factors, strategic applicant behaviour, and technical complexity. Such limitations may pose risks to enforceability and market development, highlighting the need for targeted disclosure improvements. This study contributes a replicable framework for translating legal standards into measurable indicators, providing cross-jurisdictional evidence to guide examination, litigation, and policy refinement in medical AI governance.

Patients living with nociplastic pain are at particular risk of being unfairly judged because their symptoms are subjective and occur without measurable abnormalities. Nociplastic pain, now recognized as a third category of pain alongside nociceptive and neuropathic pain, arises in the absence of tissue damage sufficient to explain the clinical presentation. This “unseen” pain affects at least ten percent of the population, commonly involves the musculoskeletal or visceral systems, and leads to substantial suffering and functional impairment. Validation of these chronic symptoms is often contentious because no objective biomarker or physical sign can reliably confirm their presence or severity. The concept of illness without measurable parameters challenges clinicians and conflicts with legal systems that rely heavily on objective evidence in adjudicating health-related questions. Most clinicians have limited training in medicolegal principles, standards of impartiality, or the ethical distinctions between patient advocacy and objective reporting. These challenges are amplified in cases involving chronic nociplastic pain, where the lack of observable findings complicates clinical interpretation and may conflict with traditional expectations for legal evidence. Bias, whether conscious or unconscious, may occur at multiple stages of the medicolegal process. Inaccurate, incomplete, or biased information from patients, treating clinicians, independent medical experts, insurers, or legal representatives can influence fairness, credibility, and decisional outcomes. This review summarizes key considerations in the adjudication of chronic nociplastic pain and examines how various sources of bias may shape medicolegal decision-making. Improving awareness of these risks and implementing strategies to reduce bias may promote a more reliable and equitable interface between clinical assessment and legal adjudication.

The role of pharmaceutical companies in promoting overuse of opioids by influencing medical discourse is underexamined. Marketing messages have been seeded in journal articles, continuing medical education (CME), prescribing guidelines, educational activities, and professional society recommendations. Terms generated or redefined by industry created a framework for promoting opioids. This paper focuses on the terms “opiophobia,” “pseudoaddiction,” “breakthrough pain” and “pain is the 5th vital sign.” The reframing of incipient opioid use disorder as “tolerance” and “dependence” is also discussed. The proliferation of these industry-supported terms within medical discourse created a false evidence base that opioids were safe and effective for chronic pain and that withholding opioids deprived patients of the best care.

Providing physiologic support to a brain-dead pregnant decedent poses complex ethical, legal, and clinical challenges. Understanding these considerations is necessary to navigate complex discussion and provide appropriate medical care. We use a theoretical case to examine these considerations and outline a path forward.

Tort law has traditionally prioritized physical over emotional injury claims, due in part to insufficient methods of quantifying the latter. But advances in neuroimaging now make it possible to measure the distinct (and often chronic) neurological damage caused by PTSD, suggesting that it should be treated as both a physical and emotional harm. I argue that this recategorization may help PTSD victims win just restitution, especially for those from marginalized groups whose suffering has traditionally been overlooked and underappreciated by the legal system. Lingering probative and prejudicial flaws will likely limit current judicial applications of PTSD neuroimaging to citations of aggregate research. Until the technology improves in accuracy and sensitivity, individual PTSD neuroimaging on tort plaintiffs will fail to meet most state and federal evidentiary standards. When it does achieve sufficient reliability, neuroimaging precedent for traumatic brain injury may offer guidance on how to incorporate the technology without creating a “CSI effect” that harms plaintiffs unable to access or afford brain scans. PTSD neuroimaging may ultimately foster a greater appreciation for the physical toll of psychological illnesses, catalyzing the movement to dismantle the mind-body divide in tort jurisprudence.