two watercolor silhouettes.

Neurodiversity and Psychedelics Decriminalization

By Dustin Marlan

Following over fifty years of the racist and corrupt war on drugs, drug decriminalization is now a social justice issue. As I explore in Beyond Cannabis: Psychedelic Decriminalization and Social Justice, the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs, in particular, is a matter of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Psychedelics have long been prohibited under Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act. However, after successful efforts in Denver, Oakland, Santa Cruz, and Ann Arbor, there are now attempts underway to decriminalize psilocybin mushrooms and other natural psychedelics in over 100 cities across the country, including Washington, D.C., which will vote on Initiative 81 in November 2020.

Read More

man lying on couch.

Psychedelics and America: A Digital Symposium

By Mason Marks

In 2020, the psychedelics research and policy reform renaissance is in full swing. Prohibited by federal law since the 1970s, psychedelic substances can alter how people see themselves, the world, and those around them. Clinical trials suggest they may help people overcome ingrained thought patterns associated with depression, anxiety, and addiction.

Acknowledging their spiritual and therapeutic potential, universities have established new psychedelics research programs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deemed them breakthrough therapies for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. This designation means they could be significant improvements over traditional treatments such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Accordingly, the FDA has put some psychedelics on an accelerated course toward approval. Eventually, they could help millions who have not benefitted from existing therapies.

However, despite their breakthrough status, psychedelics will not become FDA approved for several years. Meanwhile, the COVID-19 pandemic is making the country’s mental health crisis worse. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, and suicidal thoughts have risen in the past nine months.

Read More

(Institute for the feeble-minded, Lincoln, Ill. / Library of Congress)

Why Buck v. Bell Still Matters

By Jasmine E. Harris

In 1927, Buck v. Bell upheld Virginia’s Eugenical Sterilization Act, authorizing the state of Virginia to forcibly sterilize Carrie Buck, a young, poor white woman the state determined to be unfit to procreate.

In less than 1,000 words, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for all but one of the Justices of the Court, breathed new life into an otherwise fading public eugenics movement.

More than 70,000 people (predominantly women of color) were forcibly sterilized in the twentieth century.

Buck is most often cited for its shock value and repeatedly, for what is, perhaps, its most famous six words: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” While this may be the most provocative language in the opinion, it is not the most noteworthy.

Read More

Dried psilocybe cubensis psilocybin magic mushrooms inside a plastic prescription medicine bottle isolated on white background.

As Cities Decriminalize Psychedelics, Law Enforcement Should Step Back

By Mason Marks

Amid rising rates of depression, suicide, and substance use disorders, drug makers have scaled back investment in mental health research. Psychedelics may fill the growing need for innovative psychiatric drugs, but federal prohibition prevents people from accessing their benefits. Nevertheless, some cities, dissatisfied with the U.S. war on drugs, are decriminalizing psychedelics.

In 2019, Denver became the first U.S. city to decriminalize mushrooms containing psilocybin, a psychedelic the FDA considers a breakthrough therapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) and treatment-resistant depression.

In a historic vote, Denver residents approved Ordinance 301, which made prosecuting adults who possess psilocybin-containing mushrooms for personal use the city’s “lowest law enforcement priority.” Since then, in Oakland and Santa Cruz, California, voters approved their own decriminalization measures.

As a Schedule I controlled substance, psilocybin remains illegal under federal law, and despite ongoing clinical trials, it is unlikely to become FDA approved for several years. Social distancing requirements due to COVID-19 are disrupting medical research causing further delays. But as the November election approaches, other U.S. cities prepare to vote on psychedelics.

Read More

Stacks of books against a burgundy wall

Announcing The Journal of Philosophy of Disability 

The Journal of Philosophy of Disability (JPD) is a new journal devoted to the philosophical study of disability.

Disability is central to human life. As the slogan from disability studies goes: “disability is everywhere, once you know how to look for it.” After a steady stream of scholarship from the 1990s onward, work in the field of philosophy of disability has expanded exponentially. Despite this explosion, there has never been a peer-reviewed journal devoted to scholarship in the field of philosophy of disability. Until now.

Read More

mask

The Disparate Impact of COVID-19 on Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

By James W. Lytle

Katrina Jirik’s compelling post on the dangers posed to people with disabilities if care is rationed during the COVID-19 pandemic powerfully characterizes discriminatory allocation criteria as a form of “updated eugenic thought” that cannot be reconciled with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other anti-discrimination statutes.

I worry, however, that persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations face an even graver threat:  policymakers may unintentionally adopt policies that neglect to consider the unique needs of persons with disabilities and inadvertently place them at much greater risk.

Read More

New technologies are empowering persons with disabilities. But are they Assistive?

Consumer tech has reduced daily friction for countless individuals, making it easier to control households, shop for groceries, and connect with loved ones. These technologies can be especially empowering for persons with disabilities, increasing accessibility and resolving frustrations of everyday activities. You may have seen related news in press releases and popular headlines: “Alexa is a Revelation to the Blind,” “Disabled Americans Deserve the Benefit of Self-Driving Cars,” “Amazon Alexa Can Help People With Autism Do More On Their Own.”

But are these technologies assistive? Disability nonprofit Understood.org defines assistive technology as “any device, software, or equipment that helps people work around their challenges.” Classifying a device or software as assistive technology (and/or related regulatory labels) can lead to insurance coverage and tax incentives. It can change how devices are viewed in healthcare settings and impact product research and design. In this article, we speak with bioethicist and disability scholar Dr. Joseph Stramondo about how to define assistive technologies in today’s consumer tech revolution. 

Read More

a home hub featuring icons of all the tasks it can assist with in a thinking cloud

Exploring Elder Care Robotics: Voice Assistants and Home Hubs

This article is part of a four-part series that researches how robotics are being developed for aging care and investigates their ethical implications. In our first article, we explored emotional companion robots, which soothe and comfort patients experiencing loneliness, depression, or diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Today, we look at voice assistants and home hubs—robots designed to coordinate and simplify daily tasks around the house. 

What are Voice Assistants and Home Hubs?

Unlike other robots in this series, you are probably familiar with voice assistants and home hubs. These robots, which include Amazon Echo, Google Home, Apple Siri, Samsung Ballie, and Nest, respond to human commands (voice, motion, or input) to complete tasks like preheating the oven, playing a podcast, or refilling a prescription. Several devices also incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) to learn household patterns and anticipate needs.  However, unlike social robots (covered later in this series), voice assistants do not proactively engage with users unless programmed or commanded.   Read More

Uncertainty and Immutability: Arguments for Genetic Nondiscrimination

By Kaitlyn Dowling, based on research by the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society

Illustration of a gavel made out of a DNA helixIn a year-long series on Bill of Health, we’ll be exploring the legal scholarship on genetic non- discrimination. We’ll talk more about GINA and state laws protecting citizens from genetic discrimination. We hope these posts help shed light on this complex and ever-more-relevant area for legal scholars, policymakers, and the public at large. Read the previous posts in the series.

We’ve covered the history of genetic non-discrimination legislation and the potential risks of being discriminated against in housing and lending and education based on genetic data. Those risks are clear: there are many reasons why a bank, landlord, or school might want to take a person’s genetic information (and, thus, their potential future health) into account. Let’s take a deeper dive into two broad arguments in favor of strong privacy protections for genetic information and their consequences.

 

Uncertainty

A common policy argument in favor of genetic non-discrimination legislation is that genetic discrimination is unjust because the outcomes implicated by one’s genes may never manifest. In 2001, President George W. Bush stated that “[g]enetic discrimination is unfair to workers and their families. It is unjustified – among other reasons, because it involves little more than medical speculation. A genetic predisposition toward cancer or heart disease does not mean the condition will develop.” Read More

The Week in Health Law podcast logo twihl.com

New TWIHL with Melissa Keyes, Heather Walter-McCabe, Stacey Tovino, & Ruqaiijah Yearby

By Nicolas Terry

This episode was recorded at our recent conference entitled Getting Real About Health Care for All. An outstanding panel at the conference was asked the question, “Can We Make Health Care Inclusive?” To answer that question we welcomed Melissa Keyes, Heather Walter-McCabe, Stacey Tovino, and Ruqaiijah Yearby. They approached the question from the perspective of those commonly excluded from quality healthcare; those along the capacity spectrum, members of the LGBTQ communities, those suffering from mental health or substance use disorders, and those requiring home or facility-based long-term care.

The Week in Health Law Podcast from Nicolas Terry is a commuting-length discussion about some of the more thorny issues in health law and policy. Subscribe at Apple Podcasts or Google Play, listen at Stitcher Radio, SpotifyTunein or Podbean.

Show notes and more are at TWIHL.com. If you have comments, an idea for a show or a topic to discuss you can find me on Twitter @nicolasterry or @WeekInHealthLaw.

Subscribe to TWIHL here!