The sale of unproven stem cell interventions (SCIs) by commercial entities has proliferated in highly developed countries, most notably in the USA. Yet, there have been few criminal prosecutions and regulatory enforcement actions against providers who have violated laws and best practice standards due to the lack of resources and legal ambiguity. While the stem cell research community has invested much in protecting patients and preventing the growth of this industry, some patients are seeking remedies under civil law to hold stem cell clinics responsible for fraudulent practices. Several patients have filed lawsuits against providers demanding compensation for physical injuries caused by unproven treatments and financial losses due to fraud and false advertising. Lawsuits can be used as a tool not only to compensate plaintiffs but also to achieve positive public health and policy outcomes. In this paper, we explore the value of a public health litigation strategy as a countermeasure against the exploitative practices of the unproven SCI industry by analyzing stem cell lawsuits and comparing them with other major public health litigation efforts. We argue that stem cell lawsuits complement other approaches to reining in unsafe practices. In particular, stem cell lawsuits could intensify publicity and raise awareness of the harms of unproven treatments, set legal precedent, reshape the media narrative from one focused on the right to try or practice to one highlighting the need for adequate safety and efficacy standards, and encourage authorities to turn their attention to policy reform and enforcement.

and such a deliberation can be meaningful only if we take into account the complexity of the issues at stake.In sum, the issues of physical and psychological harm and of commercial exploitation are important, but they are hardly the only normative issues raised by the use of MMTs. None of these issues can be resolved without a broader examination of the importance of memory and the risks of its deliberate modification. As we have suggested, the inappropriate use of MMTs can deny access to important truths, reduce our self-knowledge, and prevent us from satisfying our obligations to ourselves and to others. It is unfortunate therefore that Henry et al. (2007) have glossed over these important normative issues. We hope that future discussions of this matter do not. REFERENCES Henry, M., J. R. Fishman, and S. J. Youngner. 2007. Propranolol and the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder: Is it wrong to erase the "sting" of bad memories? American Journal of Bioethics (AJOBNeuroscience) 7(9): 12-20. Liao, S. M., and A. Sandberg. 2007. The normativity of memory modifications. In press.

Patients with Alzheimer's disease and other types of dementia with acute medical problems, who have lost capacity and are without advance directives, are at risk of being over treated inhospitals. To deal with this growing demographic and ethical crisis, patients with dementia need to plan for their future medical care while they have capacity to do so. This article will examine the role of each member of the dementia care triad and how to empower the patient to participate in planning future medical care. A case will be made that physicians have the same professional disclosure obligations to dementia patients as they do to all other capable patients with terminal illnesses. Because there is little consensus about what facts should be included in a diagnostic disclosure, this article will offer a proposal to empower newly diagnosed patients with dementia with capacity to plan for their future medical care.

Live kidney donation involves a delicate balance between saving the most lives possible and maintaining a transplant system that is fair to the many thousands of patients on the transplant waiting list. Federal law and regulations require that kidney allocation be equitable, but the pressure to save patients subject to ever-lengthening waiting times for a transplant has been swinging the balance toward optimizing utility at the expense of justice. This article traces the progression of innovations created to make optimum use of a patient's own live donors. It starts with the simplest - direct donation by family members - and ends with voucher donations, a very recent and unique innovation because the donor can donate 20 or more years before the intended recipient is expected to need a kidney. In return for the donation, the intended recipient receives a voucher that can be redeemed for a live kidney when it is needed. Other innovations that are discussed include kidney exchanges and list paired donation, which are used to facilitate donor swaps when donor/recipient pairs have incompatible blood types. The discussion of each new innovation shows how the equity issues build on each other and how, with each new innovation, it becomes progressively harder to find an acceptable balance between utility and justice. The article culminates with an analysis of two recent allocation methods that have the potential to save many additional lives, but also affirmatively harm some patients on the deceased donor waiting list by increasing their waiting time for a life-saving kidney. The article concludes that saving additional lives does not justify harming patients on the waiting list unless that harm can be minimized. It also proposes solutions to minimize the harm so these new innovations can equitably perform their intended function of stimulating additional transplants and extending the lives of many transplant patients.

A recent commentary argued for arbitration to resolve authorship disputes within academic research settings explaining that current mechanisms to resolve conflicts result in unclear outcomes and institutional power vested in senior investigators could compromise fairness. We argue here that arbitration is not a suitable means to resolve disputes among researchers in academia because it remains unclear who will assume the costs of arbitration, the rules of evidence do not apply to arbitration, and decisions are binding and very difficult to appeal. Instead of arbitration, we advocate for peer-based approaches involving a peer review committee and research ethics consultation to help resolve authorship disagreements. We describe the composition of an institutional peer review committee to address authorship disputes. Both of these mechanisms are found, or can be formed, within academic institutions and offer several advantages to researchers who are likely to shy away from legalistic processes and gravitate towards those handled by their peers. Peer-based approaches are cheaper than arbitration and the experts involved have knowledge about academic publishing and the culture of research in the specific field. Decisions by knowledgeable and neutral experts could reduce bias, have greater authority, and could be appealed. Not only can peer-based approaches be leveraged to resolve authorship disagreements, but they may also enhance collegiality and promote a healthy team environment.