Johnathon P Ehsani, Michelle Duren, Kerri McGowan Lowrey, Daniel Cooke
{"title":"Reforming the Driving Examination Process Evidence Gaps and Data Needs.","authors":"Johnathon P Ehsani, Michelle Duren, Kerri McGowan Lowrey, Daniel Cooke","doi":"10.1017/jme.2026.10229","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2026.10229","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Every US state requires drivers to pass a knowledge and skills examination before obtaining their driver's license. Surprisingly little is known about the progression of people through the examination process. To date, no research has been conducted on the proportion of individuals who pass from one stage of the driver examination process to the next compared to those who fail and are required to be reexamined. The purpose of this study was to follow the progression of a cohort of new drivers in Washington State as they advanced through the driver examination process. We reviewed driving records for 2,604 teens who started a driver education course in 2024. Of those who attempted the knowledge test at least once, 96 percent passed their knowledge test and 85 percent passed their skills exam. There were significant differences in pass and fail rates by sex, race, and household income. The overwhelming majority of new drivers passed both the knowledge and skills exams after two attempts. The fact that teenagers have a high risk of crashing in the first year of licensure suggests that the full safety potential of the knowledge and skills exams are not being realized.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":"54 S1","pages":"15-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147693390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dina Garmroudi, Dini Harsono, Swarali Atre, Winnie Ho, Jacqueline Jin, Kate Nyhan, Hanna Peterson, J Lucian Davis, Kaveh Khoshnood
{"title":"Ethical Principles and Practices in HIV Acquisition Research in Humanitarian Crises: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Dina Garmroudi, Dini Harsono, Swarali Atre, Winnie Ho, Jacqueline Jin, Kate Nyhan, Hanna Peterson, J Lucian Davis, Kaveh Khoshnood","doi":"10.1017/jme.2026.10246","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2026.10246","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional analysis of ethical principles and practices in forty-one published research papers with empirical data on HIV prevalence, incidence, or risk factors in humanitarian settings. We identified ten key concepts pertinent to ethical principles and applications, and presented recommendations to inform future HIV prevention research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"143-155"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13040380/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147390538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Insurrection Powers and the Public's Health.","authors":"James G Hodge, Taylor Brown, Kimberly Hartle","doi":"10.1017/jme.2026.10253","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2026.10253","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>President Trump and his administration have repeatedly threatened to invoke insurrection powers and unleash US military and National Guard members in American cities in response to civil uprisings and alleged interferences with immigration officials' actions. In so doing, they raise a specter of significant constitutional clashes over the use of these antiquated emergency authorities. To the extent Congress is unwilling to constrain presidential discretion, the US Supreme Court may be called on to clarify the scope and limits of Insurrection Act powers.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"251-254"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147845536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Social Determinants of Health Revisited: Detouring Around the Weberian Bureaucracy.","authors":"Ming-Jui Yeh","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10205","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2025.10205","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The knowledge of the Social Determinants of Health (SDH) approach implies Health in All Policies and thorough cultural and social transformations, as well as whole-of-government, whole-of-society policies and governance to address health inequities. Nonetheless, this article argues that in the currently dominant rational decision-making model in health policymaking, these policy implications from the knowledge of the SDH approach would lead to an intrinsic contradiction with the logic of modern bureaucracy based on the legal authority as suggested by Max Weber. Using two examples of social determinants of health - universal health coverage and housing issues - this article demonstrates the potential of the polis model proposed by Deborah Stone to take advantage of the knowledge of the SDH approach to pursue structural policy interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"156-161"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145783714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Additional Ethical, Legal, and Social Considerations for Clinicians Navigating a Difficult Relationship with a Patient's Surrogate Decision-Maker.","authors":"Megan S Wright","doi":"10.1017/jme.2026.10281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2026.10281","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary highlights additional considerations for clinicians encountering substitute decision-makers who want to make different decisions than the healthcare or ethics team thinks an incapacitated patient would have made. This commentary first focuses on how evolving understandings of decision-making capacity and the increased availability of formal supported decision-making matter for cases like Mr. Andrews. This commentary then discusses relational autonomy in end-of-life decision-making and how patients may prioritize their family's needs over their own medical preferences. This commentary then concludes by discussing other legal implications, namely the potential abuse of legal processes that facilitate decision-making on behalf of unrepresented patients and corresponding concern that physician paternalism is being masked as consideration for patient autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":"54 3","pages":"348-351"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"149197299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"\"Stress Off Our Shoulders\": A Qualitative Pilot Study of a Neonatal Medical-Legal Partnership.","authors":"Susanne Klawetter, Lauren Mutrie, Eline Lenne, Alinda Reimer, Browning Haynes, Yesenia Morales, Ladawna Gievers","doi":"10.1017/jme.2026.10250","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2026.10250","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Medical-Legal Partnerships (MLPs) integrate attorneys into health care settings to provide free legal care for low-income families. Our objective was to explore MLP client experiences of a neonatal MLP integrated into a neonatal intensive care unit and fetal care program.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We used a qualitative descriptive inquiry methodological approach to conduct interviews with clients of the neonatal MLP clients. Interviews were conducted via telephone, recorded, and transcribed. We conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen neonatal MLP clients completed qualitative interviews. We found that MLPs may facilitate supportive, holistic, and interdisciplinary care that mitigates parental distress and addresses structural barriers to family stability. The program would be improved with more transparency, capacity, and visibility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Medical-Legal Partnerships offer an innovative strategy to address social determinants with legal implications that impact the health and well-being of neonatal intensive care unit and fetal care therapy patients and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"188-194"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13040379/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147505255","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Addressing US Demand for Psychedelic Medicines in the Face of Scientific Uncertainty.","authors":"Holly Fernandez Lynch, Xinping Hu, Alison Bateman-House","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10183","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2025.10183","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychedelic medicines hold the promise of therapeutic benefit for many suffering from serious unmet mental health needs, leading to substantial demand even before these drugs receive FDA approval based on demonstrated safety and effectiveness for particular conditions. Recognizing FDA approval as the ideal path for psychedelics intended for medical use and drawing on lessons from medical marijuana, we encourage policymakers to balance the need for evidence, the importance of patient safeguards, and the desire for speed. They should increase support for psychedelic research, reject approaches that could inhibit that research, explore improvements to FDA's existing pre-approval access pathway, and avoid politically motivated FDA approval of psychedelic medicines.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"60-68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145294277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Objective Standards of Medical Judgment: A Myth of (Texas) Abortion Law.","authors":"Abraham Graber, Mack Peterson, Ethan Detrick","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10208","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2025.10208","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Post-<i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i>, abortion regulation is left entirely to the states. Laws that restrict access to abortion generally allow for exceptions when determined necessary for the life or safety of the pregnant patient. Some states, e.g., Ohio, use a \"subjective\" legal standard when determining whether an abortion is medically necessary. Other states, e.g., Texas, rely on an \"objective\" legal standard, whereby the necessity of an abortion is not determined by any particular physician's judgments, but rather by the judgment of a hypothetical \"reasonable physician.\" Though objective legal standards are widespread in American jurisprudence, they are a poor fit for clinical judgments about the medical necessity of abortion. On the contemporary model of clinical decision-making, medical judgment is irremediably subjective. In addition to being responsive to patient values and medical evidence, medical judgment is, and should be, informed by physician values. Because Texas abortion regulations rely on an objective standard of judgment that fails to correspond to a medically meaningful category, they fail to provide adequate guidance to physicians regarding the circumstances under which abortion is legally protected.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"36-43"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13053121/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146031385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Standards of Medical Judgment as a Vehicle for State Encroachment on the Practice of Medicine.","authors":"Melissa Morgan, Carmel Shachar","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10214","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2025.10214","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In their article <i>Objective Standards of Medical Judgment: A Myth of Abortion Law</i>, Graber et al. explore the different legal standards for evaluating if a physician properly offered abortion care under a medical exception to states' abortion restrictions. While this piece focuses tightly on the use of legal standards to limit access to abortion care, it should be understood in the broader context of a legal and political environment that is increasingly shifting the locus of medical decision-making power from the medical profession to state actors. We agree with Graber et al. that physicians should use their voices to speak out and educate the community on the medical decision-making process. But we are concerned that some state and legal actors are intentionally looking to improperly encroach upon the practice of medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":"54 1","pages":"44-45"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147516372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Federal Policy and Legal Framework to Help Address Health Disparities Experienced by People with Intellectual and Other Cognitive Disabilities: Clinical Research and Supported Decision-Making.","authors":"Alison Barkoff","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10201","DOIUrl":"10.1017/jme.2025.10201","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People with intellectual and other cognitive disabilities often face barriers to participating in clinical research, particularly related to the informed consent process. Recent federal policy and legal efforts have advanced strategies to address these challenges, including using supported decision-making. This article discusses this recent progress and the risks and potential opportunities to continuing it in a shifting federal landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"13-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147534274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}