Faculty Bibliography

Years ago, one of us had the opportunity to talk with a starting guard in the National Basketball Association about his health care. The player, then a rookie, did not have his own personal doctor. Instead, he received his health care from the team doctor. This athlete was very well paid and could have received care anywhere he wished in the area. But he came from a very poor neighborhood. Growing up, he said, he had no health care other than hearing and eye tests done at his school and maybe (he was not sure) vaccinations given by the school nurse. The player said he now felt fine and trusted his team to look out for his health since they were paying him a lot of money and obviously wanted him on the court. While it might seem obvious that conflicts of role could arise for doctors working simultaneously for a team and for an athlete-wanting to please coaches, owners, and maybe fans while looking out for the athletes on the team-that is not how this young player saw things. He trusted his team and those who worked for them, and he figured that their interest in keeping him healthy overlapped nicely with his interest in staying healthy. As someone who did not get much access to health care as a child and had little need for it, he did not have concerns about conflicts of interest and second opinions foremost in his mind. But as is clear from a recent scandal involving the National Football League and concussion research, there are reasons for concern when athletes deal with health care workers paid by their teams.

The men and women who serve in the armed forces, in the words of Major General Joseph Caravalho, "sign a blank check, co-signed by their families, payable to the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines, up to and including their lives." It is human nature to consider such a pact in polarized terms; the pact concludes in either a celebratory homecoming or funereal mourning. But in reality, surviving catastrophic injury may incur the greatest debt. The small but real possibility of losing the ability to bear biological children due to genitourinary combat injury has been a topic of discussion in hushed tones, behind closed doors. But as policy changes move the conversation into the open, we must be fully aware of the far-reaching and long-term impacts of decisions on those who have sustained genitourinary injury. In January 2016, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter outlined a set of reforms that would improve the quality of life for military families by recognizing the importance of maintaining fertility, even in the face of severe injury. This first promising step could build a solid foundation of insuring fertility preservation for wounded service members with genitourinary injury, and it could set a precedent beyond the military for insuring treatment for people who have lost their reproductive capacity. Thus, the ethical challenges raised by the new policy require careful analysis.

Recent debate on whether physicians should discuss gun ownership with their patients has centered on determining whether gun injuries are an issue of health or safety, and on protecting patient privacy. Yet, physicians' duties span personal health, public health, and safety spheres, and they often must address private patient matters. To prioritize gun safety and reduce gun injuries, the primary policy-driving question should be: will physician counseling on gun ownership effectively reduce gun-related injuries without interfering with the physician's other treatment obligations or compromising the physician-patient relationship? Existing data on physician-initiated conversations with patients about guns support a positive prevention effect. However, it is critical that physician-initiated discussions of safe gun practices are not motivated by, nor convey, disapproval of gun ownership. To be ethical, respectful, and efficient, the conversation should be standard between primary care providers and all of their patients (not limited to patient subsets); questions and education should be limited to topics of gun-ownership risks and storage practices; and the conversation must be framed without bias against gun ownership.

The products of synthetic biology may improve medicine, national security, environmental protection, and the economy, but under-regulated development could catastrophically compromise these endeavors. Considering the dangers exhibited by existing microorganisms and public access to tools of synthetic biology construction, the field's untested novelty implicates human health and safety. Further, social justice concerns are raised by the resources required to sustain a shift from a fossil fuel-based economy to a biofuel-based economy. Current regulations are insufficient to address these risks. Accordingly, regulations must be modified through amendments coordinated between the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. Interagency regulation provides the strongest prospect for supporting beneficial developments while protecting against hazards unique to the field. This Article provides a brief history of synthetic biology and examines its public and private development. This Article also examines its potential benefits and risks and current applicable regulations, both national and international. It concludes with propositions for regulatory modification, and attention is given to domestic interagency regulation