Podcasts about petrie flom center

Alicia Yamin, Lecturer on Law and the Director of the Global Health and Rights Project at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, talks about Mexico's judicial reform plan, which makes all federal judges elected, rather than appointed positions. Yamin, who is also Adjunct Senior Lecturer on Health Policy and Management at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, considers this a threat to Mexican democracy.

The FDA's rejection of MDMA as a treatment may well be a short-term setback for legally helping people with PTSD and other disorders. Mason Marks of Harvard Law School's Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy offers his assessment. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state courts and legislatures have grappled with its legal and policy implications, especially as they pertain to abortion and IVF. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos should be regarded as “children” for the purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. And in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law that bans all abortions in the state except those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother.These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space.Featuring:Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law SchoolProf. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America

Mason Marks is the Florida Bar health law section professor at the Florida State University College of Law. At Harvard Law School, he is the senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR) at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, and he also writes an extremely insightful weekly newsletter covering the psychedelic space that's called Psychedelic Week.Today we get down to brass tracks on the ins and outs of psychedelic law and policy in the U.S. as well as a host of other interesting topics - Please rate and review the podcast wherever you're listening and consider sharing it with a friend. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Joe interviews Mason Marks, MD, JD: drug policy analyst, writer, Professor at the Florida State University College of Law, and senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR) at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics. As somewhat of an expert on drug policy and FDA regulation, Marks discusses much of the current legal landscape: What was controversial and most interesting about the FDA's recent guidance for researchers running clinical trials; how an amendment changed Colorado's Natural Medicine Act and the odd vibe coming from the rule-making process (very private with canceled meetings and a notable lack of urgency); concerns over Oregon's confusing program not being sustainable; and how Senate Bill 303 drastically changed confidentiality and how personal data would be collected in the state.  He also discusses the complications and ethics of end-of-life care and psychedelics; the theoretical heart valve risk from chronic use and ways we could research this; the challenge of informed consent; the legal risk of transactions involving people gifting illegal substances; the Gracias Foundation's recent $16 million grant to Harvard and how people at Harvard feel about psychedelics; and more.  POPLAR, which was founded to essentially change laws around psychedelics, is hosting a conference on February 16 in Manhattan called “Drug Law for the 21st Century,” which will be looking back on 50 years of DEA drug policy and envisioning what could be different going forward. Click here to head to the show notes page. 

There's growing excitement that artificial intelligence can make health care better by speeding up care, improving diagnoses and easing the burden on a burned out workforce. But there are also concerns that these powerful new tools will perpetuate biases and inequities long baked into our health care system.In Part 2 of our special series on racial bias in health care AI, we dig into what the Biden administration is doing to keep biased algorithms from getting to the bedside.Guests:Emily Sterrett, MD, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director of Improvement Science, Duke University School of Medicine Department of PediatricsMark Sendak, MD, MPP, Population Health & Data Science Lead, Duke Institute for Health InnovationMinerva Tantoco, Chief AI Officer, New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty, Policy and ResearchCarmel Shachar, JD, MPH, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law SchoolKathryn Marchesini, JD, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information TechnologyMelanie Fontes Rainer, JD, Director, HHS Office for Civil RightsLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Dan Gorenstein will moderate three one-on-one discussions featuring industry leaders and top officials from ONC, FDA, and HHS' Office of Civil Rights over two plenary sessions, you can watch them here.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift, which for a limited time will be matched! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mason Marks is a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at the Petrie–Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. M. Marks and I.G. Cohen. How Should the FDA Evaluate Psychedelic Medicine? N Engl J Med 2023;389:1733-1735.

A wave of new research is showing the promise of psychedelics to help with mental health conditions — like depression and post traumatic stress disorder. The federal government continues to say it's illegal to use these substances for treatment, but states like Oregon and Colorado are attempting to roll out regulated use. We talk with Mason Marks about the latest research, regulation, and legal gray areas on psychedelics. Guests:Mason Marks, JD MD Project Lead on the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Learn more and read a full transcript on our website.We're also excited to share that you can now find Tradeoffs on YouTube! Still not enough Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Psychedelics have powerful impacts on the human mind, and researchers are finding new ways to use those drugs to help people overcome mental difficulties. Do they also herald a new freedom of thought? Mason Marks of the Petrie-Flom Center comments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this session our newest podcast host Sarah Spelsberg speaks with Stephen Wood about emergency concerns and preventive warnings heading into the Fourth of July holiday in the US – a holiday renowned for increased trauma, burns, and explosive injuries - as well as how he balances his extreme/tactical medicine careers with his leadership, research and academia. Stephen proves that you really can have it all in your career. Stephen is an acute care nurse practitioner and program director for the acute care nurse practitioner program and the new Extreme Medicine program at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. He is also the Field Operations Director for the US for World Extreme Medicine. He is currently working clinically in the ED at Carney Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Previous to this he was the director of advanced practice providers in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at St. Elizabeth's Medical Center from 2021 - 2023 and the director of affiliated providers in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at Carney Hospital from 2020- 2021 during the COVID Pandemic. Prior to this he spent 11 years practicing as a nurse practitioner in emergency medicine. His roots are in EMS, and he has over 30 years of field experience, including nine years as a flight paramedic. Most recently, he was a medic for a regional SWAT team and an event EMT for the Boston Red Sox. His EMS involvement currently includes his work with the FDNY EMS fellowship and with training various fire departments in Rescue Task Force. He is a former fellow in Bioethics at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School and a current visiting researcher at the Petrie-Flom Center at the Harvard Law School Petrie-Flom Center for Health Policy.  He was the associate director for the BIDMC Disaster Medicine Fellowship for five years and worked with the Be Like Brit orphanage in Haiti both on-ground and doing telemedicine. He holds a Master of Science in Nursing as well as a Master of Science in Toxicology. He has also been a podcaster and conference host for World Extreme Medicine. He has a number of scholarly publications including book chapters, peer-reviewed articles and blogs. His hobbies include writing, reading, magic and lobstering.

Intentional miscoding of abortion services may put clinicians and hospital systems at legal risk. JAMA Senior Editor Linda Brubaker, MD, MS, and Carmel Shachar, JD, MPH, from the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, Harvard Law School, discuss the risks of intentional miscoding practices and possible penalties. Related Content: Abortion Miscoding—Legal Risks for Clinicians and Hospital Systems

There's growing excitement that artificial intelligence can make health care better by speeding up care, improving diagnoses and easing the burden on a burned out workforce. But there are also concerns that these powerful new tools will perpetuate biases and inequities long baked into our health care system.In Part 2 of our special series on racial bias in health care AI, we dig into what the Biden administration is doing to keep biased algorithms from getting to the bedside.Guests:Emily Sterrett, MD, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Director of Improvement Science, Duke University School of Medicine Department of PediatricsMark Sendak, MD, MPP, Population Health & Data Science Lead, Duke Institute for Health InnovationMinerva Tantoco, Chief AI Officer, New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty, Policy and ResearchCarmel Shachar, JD, MPH, Executive Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law SchoolKathryn Marchesini, JD, Chief Privacy Officer, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information TechnologyMelanie Fontes Rainer, JD, Director, HHS Office for Civil RightsLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news.Support this type of journalism today, with a gift.Follow us on Twitter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Harvard Psychedelics Project at Harvard Divinity School, a student organization, presented this conference to gather faculty, researchers, and students from across Harvard University to explore their diverse, interdisciplinary, and promising research on psychedelics. Speakers came from across the University's Schools, units, and departments, including the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Business School, Harvard College, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and POPLAR at the Petrie-Flom Center. This third series of talks featured Suzannah Clark, Max Ingersoll, Logan Fahrenkopf, Jeffrey Breau, and Paul Gillis-Smith. This event took place on April 1, 2023 Learn more: https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/

The Harvard Psychedelics Project at Harvard Divinity School, a student organization, presented this conference to gather faculty, researchers, and students from across Harvard University to explore their diverse, interdisciplinary, and promising research on psychedelics. Speakers came from across the University's Schools, units, and departments, including the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Business School, Harvard College, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and POPLAR at the Petrie-Flom Center. This panel concerning the regulation of psychedelics included Glenn Cohen, Rick Doblin, Mason Marks, Leonard Pickard, Jeffrey Breau, and Paul Gillis-Smith. This event took place on April 1, 2023 Learn more: https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/

The Harvard Psychedelics Project at Harvard Divinity School, a student organization, presented this conference to gather faculty, researchers, and students from across Harvard University to explore their diverse, interdisciplinary, and promising research on psychedelics. Speakers came from across the University's Schools, units, and departments, including the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Business School, Harvard College, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and POPLAR at the Petrie-Flom Center. This first series of talks featured Franklin King, Yvan Beaussant, Grant Jones, Fernando Espi Forcen, Stephen J. Haggarty, Jeffrey Breau, and Paul Gillis-Smith. This event took place on April 1, 2023 Learn more: https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/

The Harvard Psychedelics Project at Harvard Divinity School, a student organization, presented this conference to gather faculty, researchers, and students from across Harvard University to explore their diverse, interdisciplinary, and promising research on psychedelics. Speakers came from across the University's Schools, units, and departments, including the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Business School, Harvard College, Harvard Divinity School, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and POPLAR at the Petrie-Flom Center. This first series of talks featured Charles Stang, Natalia Schwien, Rachael Petersen, Andrea Lerner, Ned Hall, Justin Williams, Jeffrey Breau, and Paul Gillis-Smith. This event took place on April 1, 2023 Learn more: https://cswr.hds.harvard.edu/

Rachel Easter is Senior  Counsel and Director of Federal Abortion Policy Initiatives at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, D.C., She has spent the entirety of her legal career at the National Women's Law Center, starting out as a Women's Law and Public Policy Fellow and working her way up to Senior Counsel. Rachel is a 2014 graduate of Stanford Law School and a 2010 graduate of the University of Virginia.For more information about the distinction between the reproductive rights movement and the reproductive justice movement that Rachel discussed, please check out this article by Danielle M. Pacia at the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard. Connect with Rachel on LinkedIn. Find us online at https://www.personaljxpod.comFind us on Twitter @PersonalJxPodPersonal Jurisdiction is powered and distributed with Simplecast. We use Riverside.FM to record our episodes. Our logos were designed by Lizzie L. O'Connor.Our Theme Song is Pleasant Porridge by Kevin MacLeod.Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/7614-pleasant-porridgeLicense: https://filmmusic.io/standard-license

America is still reeling from the landmark, albeit draft, opinion that was leaked from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, holding that the 50 year precedent of Roe V. Wade is no longer going to be valid constitutional law in America. There are obviously deep ramifications for the issue of abortion, but there are also implications that extend well beyond the question of a woman's right to choose, and that impact all kinds of economic, social, and legal questions for the future of how we live and work in America. Elyssa Spitzer is a policy analyst for the Women's Initiative at the Center for American Progress. She's served as a clerk in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and now also serves as the senior fellow in law and neuroscience with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School and the Center for Law, Brain & Behavior.

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy.""Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success. By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics. However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?The panel will address two areas with this as background: The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused? Featuring:Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular EvolutionProf. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law SchoolMs. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteModerator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Acting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has come out as the clear winner in Armenia's snap election which was held following a devastating military loss for the country in Nagorno-Karabakh. Will he be able to rebuild relations in the Caucasus region? Also, vaccine Passports are fast becoming a global reality. Soon enough, people may not be able to go to restaurants or concerts without them. In fact it's already happening in Russia and Israel. Recently, European Union vaccine passports were issued in 17 countries from the block. However, the World Health Organisation is yet to endorse vaccine passports for travel, citing concerns around inequality, privacy and a lack of common standards and infrastructure. Guests: Matthew Bryza Non-Resident Fellow With the Atlantic Council and the Former Us Ambassador to Azerbaijan Samuel Ramani Researcher at Oxford University, Specialising in Russian and Middle Eastern Foreign Policy (edited) Glenn Cohen Professor of Law at the James Attwood Center and Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School

You've probably seen the posts on social media from your loved ones, getting their COVID vaccinations or flashing their vaccine cards. Then you pause for a second and wonder how they were eligible to get vaccinated. And you're pretty sure that person cut the vaccine line. Those who did cut the line have set off some pretty heated debates among those closest to them. Carmel Shachar is executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School.It took a while to get here. But after several missteps, some supply and organizational problems and lots of frustrations, California is just about ready to offer up COVID vaccinations to every adult who wants one. Catherine Flores-Martin is the executive director of the California Immunization Coalition and a member of the California COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee.Two things you've likely been missing over these last few months: vacations and vaccinations. You can head down to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which have a very healthy supply of COVID vaccine doses. Angela East is the coordinator and director of the COVID vaccine program at Plessen Healthcare on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands Krispy Kreme offered up what certainly seemed like a well-intentioned and delicious incentive: bring in proof of receiving a COVID vaccine, and we'll give you a free glazed donut. But the offer set off a sometimes bitter debate among physicians and scientists over using an unhealthy treat to incentivize the healthy act of vaccination. Dr. Uche Blackstock is an emergency medicine physician and the founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equality. She's also a medical contributor to Yahoo News.  To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You've probably seen the posts on social media from your loved ones, getting their COVID vaccinations or flashing their vaccine cards. Then you pause for a second and wonder how they were eligible to get vaccinated. And you're pretty sure that person cut the vaccine line. Those who did cut the line have set off some pretty heated debates among those closest to them. Carmel Shachar is executive director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School. It took a while to get here. But after several missteps, some supply and organizational problems and lots of frustrations, California is just about ready to offer up COVID vaccinations to every adult who wants one. Catherine Flores-Martin is the executive director of the California Immunization Coalition and a member of the California COVID-19 Vaccine Advisory Committee. Two things you've likely been missing over these last few months: vacations and vaccinations. You can head down to the U.S. Virgin Islands, which have a very healthy supply of COVID vaccine doses. Angela East is the coordinator and director of the COVID vaccine program at Plessen Healthcare on St. Croix in the U.S. Virgin Islands  Krispy Kreme offered up what certainly seemed like a well-intentioned and delicious incentive: bring in proof of receiving a COVID vaccine, and we'll give you a free glazed donut. But the offer set off a sometimes bitter debate among physicians and scientists over using an unhealthy treat to incentivize the healthy act of vaccination. Dr. Uche Blackstock is an emergency medicine physician and the founder and CEO of Advancing Health Equality. She's also a medical contributor to Yahoo News.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today's podcast is with Shailin Thomas (@shailinthomas), who is a fifth-year student (and third year medical student) in a joint MD/JD program between Harvard Law School and the New York University School of Medicine. He received his B.S. from Yale University where he stuied cognitive neuroscience—exploring the anatomy and hysiology behind social phenomena. His interests lie at the intersection of clinical medicine and the legal forces that shape it. Prior to graduate school, Shailin worked on both the administrative and clinical sides of health care, and as a research associate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. While in graduate school, he has served as a Student Fellow at Harvard Law School’s Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics, and as an Admissions Ambassador with the NYU School of Medicine Office of Admissions — helping to recruit the next generation of physician leaders. His writing has been published in a number of outlets, including the Journal of the American Medical Association. Podcast Episode Summary 1:16 - How he's every Asian-American immigrant's dream for their son (going to Harvard, becoming a doctor and a lawyer...need I say more?) 2:12 - Why he decided to go into an eternity of schooling (and is deciding to go through with residency) 8:36 - How he took his gap years and why he worked at Harvard before he became a medical student 10:16 - How he reasons through topics in health law and how he finds topics to write about 22:54 - The origins of health law and how we can design a better liability penalties and design framework for the healthcare system 31:00 - How to balance deregulation in the healthcare industry with a legal solace for patients to get the right treatment 34:51 - His opinions on healthcare coverage and how they impact patient care; how he addresses my devil's advocate comments about shielding cost from consumers and the implications of moral hazard and more!

New viral strains continue to spread across the country, which has added to the urgency of getting as many people vaccinated as possible. With supplies of the two vaccines currently available in the U.S. falling well short of demand, mandating vaccination is likely not a realistic scenario now. But it could be in the coming months. Is it legal for states, private employers, and even airlines, to mandate a vaccine that has only been approved for emergency use? Who could be held responsible if something goes wrong after getting the shot? Carmel Shachar, JD, executive director of The Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy at Harvard Law School, joins us to explore those legal questions, and more.

Stephen P. Wood, MS, ACNP is an acute care nurse practitioner practicing emergency medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, and a fellow in bioethics at the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School in Boston. Stephen has been active in addressing the opioid healthcare crisis as a practicing nurse, educator, and as a public health official.His focus is on harm reduction and access to care in the setting of substance use disorder and human trafficking. He is also a consultant for the Southern Middlesex Regional Drug Task Force, and the New England Coalition Against Trafficking; the chair of the Winchester Hospital Substance Use Task Force; and the co-chair of the Southern Middlesex County Mental Health Working Group. He regularly contributes to the Petrie-Flom Center blog Bill of Health which can be found here https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/author/swood27/

As our nation battles the COVID-19 pandemic, our president’s response and leadership is being tested. Ventilators are in short supply, hospitals across the states are in desperate need of masks, supplies, tests, and beds, and governors across the country have been hitting the airwaves pleading for assistance from the federal government. So, what are the respective roles of the federal government and the state governments in a time of crisis? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Robert L. Tsai, constitutional law professor at the American University College of Law, and professor Glenn Cohen, faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, as they explore the concepts of federalism and states’ rights, the tug of war between the governors and the president over COVID-19, leadership during a crisis, and the constitutional underpinnings. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal.

As our nation battles the COVID-19 pandemic, our president’s response and leadership is being tested. Ventilators are in short supply, hospitals across the states are in desperate need of masks, supplies, tests, and beds, and governors across the country have been hitting the airwaves pleading for assistance from the federal government. So, what are the respective roles of the federal government and the state governments in a time of crisis? On today’s Lawyer 2 Lawyer, host Craig Williams is joined by Robert L. Tsai, constitutional law professor at the American University College of Law, and professor Glenn Cohen, faculty director at the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, as they explore the concepts of federalism and states’ rights, the tug of war between the governors and the president over COVID-19, leadership during a crisis, and the constitutional underpinnings. Special thanks to our sponsors, Blue J Legal.

Christopher Robertson is Associate Dean for Research and Innovation and Professor of Law at the University of Arizona. He is affiliated faculty with the Petrie Flom Center for Health Care Policy, Bioethics and Biotechnology at Harvard, and a reporter for the Health Law Monitoring Committee of the Uniform Law Commission. Robertson also founded the Regulatory Science Program, with support from the University’s four health science colleges. You can read Dr. Robertson’s full bio here: https://law.arizona.edu/christopher-robertson Books by Christopher Robertson Exposed: Why Our Health Insurance Is Incomplete and What Can Be Done About It https://www.amazon.com/Exposed-Health-Insurance-Incomplete-about/dp/0674972163/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Christopher+Robertson%2C+Exposed%3A+Why+Our+Health+Insurance+Is+Incomplete+and+What+Can+Be+Done+about+It&qid=1585515418&sr=8-1 Nudging Health:  Behavioral Economics and Health Law https://www.amazon.com/Nudging-Health-Law-Behavioral-Economics/dp/1421421011/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Nudging+Health%3A+Behavioral+Economics+and+Health+Law&qid=1585515518&sr=8-2 Blinding as a Solution to Bias:  Strengthening Biomedical Science, Forensic Science, and Law https://www.amazon.com/Blinding-Solution-Bias-Strengthening-Biomedical/dp/0128024607/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Blinding+as+a+Solution+to+Bias%3A+Strengthening+Biomedical+Science%2C+Forensic+Science%2C+and+Law&qid=1585515575&sr=8-1

(0.5 General California MCLE)  Are DNA, human tissue, and sperm "property"? What rights do you have over discarded DNA or cells that you shed everyday? Can you be sued for paternity for donating sperm or "stolen" sperm? Professor Glenn Cohen explores these questions and more. Prof. Cohen is one of the world's leading experts at the intersection of bioethics and the law, as well as health law.  A professor at Harvard Law School, Glenn Cohen also serves as the Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.    

(0.5 General California MCLE)  Are DNA, human tissue, and sperm "property"? What rights do you have over discarded DNA or cells that you shed everyday? Can you be sued for paternity for donating sperm or "stolen" sperm? Professor Glenn Cohen explores these questions and more. Prof. Cohen is one of the world's leading experts at the intersection of bioethics and the law, as well as health law.  A professor at Harvard Law School, Glenn Cohen also serves as the Faculty Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School.    

I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law and faculty director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, delivers an interesting overview of the many and varied ethical issues that pertain to new and emerging technologies. Professor Cohen is a noted expert on the nexus of bioethics (often referred to as ‘medical ethics') and the law, inclusive of the health law. Cohen is also heavily involved in the education opportunities regarding the civil procedure. Cohen has spoken at countless legal, medical, and industry conferences at spots all across the globe. His celebrated work has been featuredin or covered by, numerous media outlets including PBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The NewYork Times, Mother Jones, the New Republic, and many more. Cohen talks about his extensive background and training in law and medical ethics, as well as philosophy. Cohen's expertise covers a wide swath of subject matter, from artificial intelligence and healthcare to gene editing, organ transplantation, food and drug law, translational medicine, and others. Cohen talks about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural net applications as they relate to predictive medical applications and decision-making specifications for patient care. Cohen expands our understanding in the areas of pattern recognition as it relates to medical applications, and how algorithms must adapt to differing variables, for example, the differences between people such as racial makeup, citing a specific example about breast density and mammograms. He explains that the algorithm training data must accommodate all the options and variables in order to produce successful outcomes/results. And he discusses privacy issues as they relate to data. The Harvard professor details electronic health records, and how some physicians are experiencing burnout with the input of data, and how it is critical that data be input accurately and thoroughly in order for viable medical information to be helpful. He discusses reproduction, cloning, and some other issues related to genes within the context of technology. Cohen delves into gene editing further, discussing a particular case in China. Cohen explains that there was no real medical need for the gene edit and that caused quite a stir.Cohen talks about other use cases, and where things will go in the gene-editing world, and how regulations surrounding gene editing will perhaps become more relaxed if the benefits are justified. Cohen states that in the future we will probably see more debate about what is acceptable and what is not, in regard to gene editing. While there is clear prohibition right now, things could change as more scientists around the globe push the envelope.

During this question and answer session, Nathaniel Counts and Athena Mandros respond to unanswered questions from the PsychU webinar “The State Of The Union: A Critical Look At The Policy & Legislation Impacting U.S. Behavioral Health Care,” which took place on December 13, 2018. Speakers are paid consultants to Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc. Disclaimer: The information provided through PsychU is intended for the educational benefit of mental health care professionals and others who support mental health care. It is not intended as, nor is it a substitute for, medical care, advice, or professional diagnosis. Health care professionals should use their independent medical judgement when reviewing PsychU's educational resources. Users seeking medical advice should consult with a health care professional. Nathaniel Counts, JD, is a Senior Policy Director for Mental Health America. In this role, he develops innovative federal and state policy solutions for issues regarding behavioral health, including alignment of incentives and sustainable financing, and improving population health. He received his JD cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was a Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy Student Fellow. Athena Mandros, BA, is the Director of Market Intelligence at OPEN MINDS, where she serves as a subject matter expert in policy and financing of health and human services across payers. In this role, she is responsible for developing all reports on special topics such as behavioral health, non-traditional Medicaid expansion, State Innovation Model (SIM) Grants, and permanent supportive housing. She received her BA from Gettysburg College. MRC2.CORP.X.03257

Worried about the job market? Thinking that a career in higher ed no longer matches your interests and goals? Or just wondering about options? The American Academy of Religion's Applied Religious Studies Committee hosts a discussion on career paths outside the academy. Panelists discuss fields including: publishing and editing, freelance writing, nonprofits and foundations, government, religious communities, academic administration, and more; and current PhD candidates talk about their own experiences of exploring nonacademic career options in the context of their graduate studies. Panelists also explore the ways faculty, departments, and the AAR might better support scholars as they consider careers beyond the academy. Cristine Hutchison-Jones, Administrative Director, Petrie-Flom Center of Harvard Law School, presiding Panelists: - Jason Blakeburn, PhD candidate, McGill University - Regina Walton, Pastor and Rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Newton (MA)and Counselor to Episcopal/Anglican Students Harvard University - Emily Mace, Chicago Digital Humanities Coordinator, Lake Forest College - Robert P. Jones, CEO, Public Religion Research Institute This roundtable and Q&A was held at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in Boston, Massachusetts, on November 18.

When humanities scholars talk about exploring and pursuing "alt-ac" and "post-ac" careers, two concerns often dominate the conversation: 1) Graduate studies in the humanities don't prepare us for or aren't relevant to non-academic career paths, and 2) We don't know where to look for or how to apply for non-academic jobs. Whether you are a scholar thinking about non-academic careers or a faculty member interested in supporting students engaged in such searches, join our panel of career services experts to discuss the many careers that are open to - and even looking for! - people with advanced training in the humanities. Panelists will discuss existing resources and where to find them, as well as ways that departments, universities, and professional organizations like the AAR can better support scholars in non-academic careers. Panelists: Amy Defibaugh, Assistant Director, Academic Affairs, Temple University - Susan Lawler, Director of Career Services, Harvard Divinity School - Brooke Noonan, Executive Director, UChicagoGRAD Experience, University of Chicago - Susannah Laramee Kidd, Mellon-ACLS Public Fellow, Los Angeles County Arts Commission Presiding: Cristine Hutchinson-Jones, Administrative Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Harvard Law School This session was recorded on November 19, 2017 at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion in Boston, Massachusetts.

Health spending continues to outpace wages and GDP, while some new insurance designs transfer greater shares of that to patients’ own out of pocket costs. In this talk co-hosted with the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, Dr. John Freedman, President & CEO of Freedman HealthCare discusses what is driving health care costs up, who is benefiting, and how data is harnessed to study problems and remedy them. More info on this event here: https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/2018/luncheon/02/Freedman

A companion to our last episode, which focused on what students can do to prepare for nonacademic careers, this podcast highlights how religious studies faculty and graduate programs can create a variety of career paths for their students. In recent years as the job market for tenure-track academic positions has tightened and the use of contingent faculty has exploded, increasing numbers of graduate degree seekers are intending to pursue nonacademic careers. While some areas of study present obvious nonacademic options, for scholars in the humanities, nonacademic career opportunities and the best preparation for them may not be obvious and religious studies faculty are exploring how graduate programs can—and should—prepare all alumni for multiple employment outcomes. This panel brings together faculty members from a variety of institutions to discuss some of the problems confronting their students and their programs as more people turn—by necessity and by choice—to nonacademic career paths. Panelists: - Cristine Hutchison-Jones, Administrative Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School - Martin Kavka, Professor of Religion, Florida State University - Stephen Prothero, Professor of Religion, Boston University - Kathryn McClymond, Professor of Religious Studies, Georgia State University - Sarah E. Fredericks, Assistant Professor of Environmental Ethics, University of Chicago Divinity School This panel discussion was recorded during the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion on November 20, in San Antonio, Texas.

Worried about the job market? Thinking that a career in higher ed no longer matches your interests and goals? Or just wondering about options? The panelists in this discussion hold or are working on masters and doctoral degrees in a variety of religious studies and theology programs and talk about fields including: publishing and editing; freelance writing; nonprofits and foundations; government; religious communities; academic administration; and more. They discuss their own experiences of exploring nonacademic career options in the context of their graduate studies, and they suggest the ways faculty, departments, and the AAR might better support scholars as they consider careers beyond the academy. An insightful Q&A with the audience follows. Panelists: – Cristine Hutchison-Jones, Administrative Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School – Jana Riess, writer and editor – J. Shawn Landres, Los Angeles County Quality and Productivity Commission and City of Santa Monica Social Services Commission – Natasha Mikles, PhD candidate, University of Virginia – Andrew Henry, PhD candidate, Boston University – Peter Manseau, Lilly Endowment Curator of American Religious History at the National Museum of American History – Robert N. Puckett, Director of Meetings at the American Academy of Religion This panel discussion was recorded during the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion on November 20, in San Antonio, Texas.

This week we're learning about the regulatory frameworks that try to balance scientific progress with the safety of research subjects. We'll speak to Holly Fernandez Lynch and I. Glenn Cohen of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School about their book "Human Subjects Research Regulation: Perspectives on the Future." And we'll speak to health journalist and editor Hilda Bastian about research, journalism, ethics and "The Chocolate Hoax."

Prof. Holly Lynch is the Executive Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Managing Editor of the Journal. H.F. Lynch. Discrimination at the Doctor's Office. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1668-70.

The New England Compounding Center (NECC) shipped out tainted steroid shots to 23 states in what authorities believe resulted in a national fungal meningitis outbreak. Lawyer2Lawyer host Craig Williams chats with Attorney Michael F. Barrett, a personal injury attorney from the firm, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, PC and Glenn Cohen, Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, about the litigation stemming from this meningitis scare, the role of the FDA and CDC and regulation.