No abstract

No abstract

How can an agency like the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) effectively regulate software that is constantly learning and adapting to real-world data? Continuously learning algorithms pose significant public health risks if a medical device can change overtime to fundamentally alter the nature of a device post-market. This Article evaluates the FDA’s proposed regulatory framework for artificially intelligent medical devices against the backdrop of the current technology, as well as industry professionals’ desired trajectory, to determine whether the proposed regulatory framework can ensure safe and reliable medical devices without stifling innovation. Ultimately, the FDA succeeds in placing effective limits on continuously learning algorithms while giving manufacturers freedom to allow their devices to adapt to real-world data. The framework, however, does not give adequate attention to protecting patient data, monitoring cybersecurity, and ensuring safety and efficacy. The FDA, medical device industry, and relevant policymakers should increase oversight of these areas to protect patients and providers relying on this new technology.

Both research studies and practical observation find that lawyers remain at significant risk for depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and even suicide. To address these health concerns, legal workplaces and law schools have been attempting to craft new programs and initiatives that foster healthier work environments. Despite these efforts, the legal profession remains mired in outdated policies and procedures, as well as individual negative attitudes, that continue to reinforce discrimination and bias in the workplace. This harmful impact is evidenced in the surmounting difficulties many lawyers face in accessing workplace accommodations and appropriate work-life supports. These issues have only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.Peter Blanck, University Professor and Chairman of the Burton Blatt Institute, Fitore Hyseni, and Fatma Altunkol Wise recently conducted a seminal series of national empirical studies on reported discrimination and bias in the legal profession. They take an intersectional perspective of lawyers with disabilities and lawyers who identify asLGBTQþ. The American Journal of Law and Medicine invited leading legal practitioners and scholars with diverse viewpoints to examine and comment on Blanck et al.'s body of study and discuss avenues for change.The American Journal of Law and Medicine is pleased to present the work of our esteemed authors in this Special Issue. These authors present diverse and influential perspectives regarding discrimination and bias in the legal profession. We believe that you will find this Special Issue thought-provoking and informative. We hope that it stimulates additional inquiry.