scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 2053-9711

Journal of Law and the Biosciences 

Oxford University Press
About: Journal of Law and the Biosciences is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Human rights. It has an ISSN identifier of 2053-9711. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 375 publications have been published receiving 4177 citations. The journal is also known as: JLB.

Papers published on a yearly basis

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The issues raised by VUSs in clinical practice are focused on, and paths forward are suggested to suggest paths forward.
Abstract: As genetic testing technology has advanced, allowing scientists to obtain much of the raw data from our DNA, their ability to interpret these data has struggled to keep up. The result is the ubiquity of variants of uncertain significance (VUSs): findings from genetic testing for which the clinical significance is currently unresolved. What to do when these results are found is a problem that has vexed laboratories, clinicians, and patients alike. In this paper, I focus on the issues raised by VUSs in clinical practice, and suggest paths forward.

118 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Nita A. Farahany1
TL;DR: Judicial opinions issued between 2005–12 that discussed the use of neuroscience or behavioral genetics by criminal defendants were identified, coded and analysed.
Abstract: The goal of this study was to examine the growing use of neurological and behavioral genetic evidence by criminal defendants in US criminal law. Judicial opinions issued between 2005-12 that discussed the use of neuroscience or behavioral genetics by criminal defendants were identified, coded and analysed. Criminal defendants are increasingly introducing such evidence to challenge defendants' competency, the effectiveness of defense counsel at trial, and to mitigate punishment.

113 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices is presented and the case for extending existing medical device legislation to cover CEDs is presented, highlighting potential challenges to its implementation, and suggesting solutions.
Abstract: This article presents a model for regulating cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs). Recently, it has become very easy for individuals to purchase devices which directly modulate brain function. For example, transcranial direct current stimulators are increasingly being produced and marketed online as devices for cognitive enhancement. Despite posing risks in a similar way to medical devices, devices that do not make any therapeutic claims do not have to meet anything more than basic product safety standards. We present the case for extending existing medical device legislation to cover CEDs. Medical devices and CEDs operate by the same or similar mechanisms and pose the same or similar risks. This fact coupled with the arbitrariness of the line between treatment and enhancement count in favour of regulating these devices in the same way. In arguing for this regulatory model, the paper highlights potential challenges to its implementation, and suggests solutions.

91 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
David A Hoffman1
TL;DR: To best realize telehealth’s benefits, further legal and regulatory actions are necessary and lawmakers and regulators should focus on six areas: reimbursement, privacy/cybersecurity, liability, licensure, technology access, and artificial intelligence.
Abstract: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency has amplified both the potential value and the challenges with healthcare providers deploying telehealth solutions. As people across the country find ways to stay at home, telehealth preserves an opportunity to obtain necessary healthcare services. Further, telehealth can help individuals avoid COVID-19 infection, free up hospital beds and other resources for those patients most in need, and prevent infected individuals from spreading that infection. Federal and state regulators have recognized this potential of telehealth and have quickly changed a variety of laws and regulations to enable healthcare providers to deploy solutions quickly. These changes can provide lasting benefits for the use of telehealth well after the current crisis. However, to best realize telehealth's benefits, further legal and regulatory actions are necessary. Specifically, lawmakers and regulators should focus on six areas: reimbursement, privacy/cybersecurity, liability, licensure, technology access, and artificial intelligence.

91 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article is an effort to provide some deep context for the He Jiankui affair and to begin analyzing it, including a detailed narrative of the revelation of the He experiment and its fallout.
Abstract: The world was shocked in Nov. 25, 2018 by the revelation that He Jiankui had used clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (‘CRISPR’) to edit embryos—two of which had, sometime in October, become living babies. This article is an effort to provide some deep context for the He Jiankui affair and to begin analyzing it. It focuses on He's experiment, without delving into the broader ethical issues around ‘human germline genome editing’ in the abstract. It begins by carefully defining ‘human germline genome editing’. It then describes the little we know about the experiment before providing background on CRISPR, the pre-He ethical and legal status of human germline genome editing, and on He himself. The fourth, and longest, section provides a detailed narrative of the revelation of the He experiment and its fallout. The fifth section critiques the experiment, which I believe merits unequivocal condemnation on several grounds. The last section suggests some important immediate reactions, by ‘Science’ and by China.

88 citations

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
202323
202251
202119
202072
201911
201828