Glenn Cohen

Governments and health agencies around the world are considering issuing “immunity passports” to help restart their economies — documents certifying that the holders are immune to COVID-19 because they’ve already had it. But global health authorities warn that such documents would be unreliable and potentially dangerous...Meanwhile, the World Health Organization says there’s no proof that being infected once with the coronavirus makes a person immune. And critics warn that granting additional freedoms to people who are theoretically immune would risk creating a black market for certification – and even create an incentive for deliberate infection...Harvard University bioethicist Glenn Cohen said he worries that some people might be tempted to intentionally expose themselves to the virus in the hope they can battle through and then get back to work. And there is concern that some people could resort to illegal tactics to get an immunity badge, creating a black market. “I'm really worried about the diverting of resources which are finite to cracking down on the black market rather than have these resources aimed at the interventions that are most efficacious in curbing infection and helping people survive,” Cohen said.

Layla Keith had just gotten off a flight from Singapore when she and her fellow passengers were met at the gate by Hong Kong government officials and ushered onto buses that shuttled them to a nearby convention center. There, they were handed forms to fill out and given small containers to spit into...Those who tested positive for the coronavirus were sent to a hospital for treatment; others were allowed to go. But the data from their saliva stayed behind in a government database. In the global battle to curb Covid-19, governments have collected troves of data from testing and contact-tracing apps to try to find the disease and stop its spread. Even as many are willing to surrender personal information amid the crisis, privacy experts worry about who controls the data and what will happen to it after the crisis ends...Hong Kong isn’t the only place where personal data and politics are interwoven. At least one other country, Vietnam, currently greets travelers with swab tests on arrival. Vietnamese officials said that the records of every test result are retained but that it is against the law to reveal anyone’s name... “If nothing else, it is important for Hong Kong to be transparent about the details of the program so travelers can use that information in determining whether they want to travel to Hong Kong or not,” said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard University law professor and expert on the intersection of bioethics and the law.

Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure said he knew what he wanted when it came to tracking and disclosing the county’s coronavirus-related deaths: useful public information but not enough to identify the dead and their grieving families. The problem, McClure said he learned, was finding that balance during what has become a public health crisis unlike any other. As the number of deaths rises in Pennsylvania, and especially the hard hit Lehigh Valley, it’s becoming clear that the amount of information the public can expect about local coronavirus cases is a decision largely left up to county and municipal officials, resulting in a patchwork system in which what you know depends on where you live. Over the long run, some bioethicists say, that could erode both trust in the government and affect the safety of the public. “People are being asked to really trust the government here and give up a lot of civil liberties," said Glenn Cohen, a professor of bioethics at the Harvard Law School. “As part of that large social contract, we should be willing to share as much information as possible.” ... The United States’ emphasis on local autonomy is part of its history and usually works fine, Cohen said. But it turns out that the patchwork approach is not helpful during a global pandemic, he said. “I would love to see the government come up with clear guidelines, such as, if you have X level of population, you need to report X specifics. State governments could take a leadership role here,” Cohen said. “I worry that some places might think there is something to hide and, therefore, discount what is being reported.” The debate about reporting more specific information on community infections and virus-related deaths is one that’s happening all over the country, Cohen noted.

As elderly and vulnerable citizens continue to die from COVID-19 in closed-off long-term care centers around the country, many of their relatives have begged elected leaders to release the locations of these outbreaks. Their pleas have carried weight with governors in Georgia, New York, Oklahoma and Florida, among others, who mandated an accounting of where the virus had spread. Not in Texas. Despite more than 300 deaths in such facilities, Gov. Greg Abbott has not moved to make public where patients and caretakers have fallen ill or died. The state’s expansive medical privacy law has made Texas among the most opaque for releasing information about the spread of the coronavirus, even as deaths in these facilities surged nationwide. More than 10,300 elderly people in 23 states have died in long-term care centers, according to the most recent available government data analyzed by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a national health policy think tank...Pat Souter, a lawyer who represents health care institutions and oversees health care studies at Baylor University’s law school, said Texas entities were correctly following state law by not releasing detailed information. Other states providing such details “may not have the same level of protections,” he said, “or determined that such release was permissible under an exception to their laws.” Federal privacy law only creates minimum standards, agreed I. Glenn Cohen, who directs Harvard University’s Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics. But he said best practices encourage transparency during public health emergencies.

When Attorney General William Barr this week directed U.S. prosecutors to safeguard civil liberties amid state-level pandemic orders, he signaled Justice Department support for lockdown protesters by highlighting religious and economic rights. In a two-page memo, the nation’s top cop gave the clearest indication yet of the kind of battles federal prosecutors are likely to focus on. In doing so, Barr suggested the Department of Justice (DOJ) might back church groups and those seeking a swifter economic reopening while staying on the sidelines of fights over new limits on abortion and voting access... “One example of what Barr is concerned about is how churches have been singled out for different treatment,” (Gary) Bauer wrote in response to the Barr memo. “Why is it okay for people to gather at Walmart but not at church?” Legal experts say Barr might continue to press that question in court. “Religious liberty is a place where the DOJ in the Trump administration has been bringing more and more affirmative litigation on behalf of church groups and other religious voices,” said Glenn Cohen, a professor at Harvard Law School. “I will be curious to see if this becomes more than a signal and if the 93 U.S. attorneys begin bringing more litigation.”

Just a few months ago, Clearview AI faced outrage for scraping photos off social media sites like Facebook to create a near-universal facial recognition system that has been embraced by law enforcement agencies. Now, the company is again in the spotlight, this time after its CEO, Hoan Ton-That, said it's in discussions with federal and state agencies to help with contact tracing of people infected with the coronavirus. Ton-That said federal authorities and three states have communicated with him about using his company's technology as part of their coronavirus mitigation efforts...It's not yet clear whether a contact tracing system can slow the spread of the coronavirus, but even if it can, critics wonder whether one that incorporates technology like Clearview AI's might forever compromise a user's privacy. "In many places across the world, technology has been mixed with what I would call implements of social control that are coercive or quasi-coercive," said Glenn Cohen, faculty director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard University. "There are big risks about privacy, about the relationship we have to the state, about access to the things we need to have good lives, like employment. And these are all things that I think need to be sorted out in real time rather than say: 'Oh, there's this shiny new toy over here. Let's go ahead and use it, because what harm can it do?'"

Contact tracing and drug trials could be two key milestones on the path forward to safely reopening America’s economy. But Americans have differing views on each: they’re hesitant to share their personal information for contact tracing efforts, but the same is not true when it comes to drug trials, studies suggest...Contact tracing is a way to help identify a person’s whereabouts who tests positive for a contagious disease and then track down people who may have crossed paths with them. In South Korea, health officials are able to pinpoint exactly where a person who has tested positive has been using security camera footage, credit-card records, GPS data from cellphones and car navigation systems...The technology, which is strictly opt-in, works by harnessing short-range Bluetooth signals, known as Bluetooth beacons. Using the Apple-Google technology, contact-tracing apps would gather a record of other phones with which they came into close proximity. Apple and Google spokesmen said separately that none of the information gathered from phone users will be monetized and will only be used for contact tracing. Both companies can disable the broadcast system on a regional basis when it is no longer needed. The tech giants’ proposal “is the version of digital contact tracing that is the most privacy respecting,” said Glenn Cohen, a professor of health law policy and bioethics at Harvard University. “It remains to be seen, though, what these architectural decisions will mean as to efficacy.”

Arizona officials in multiple agencies are unlawfully withholding data, statistics, and information regarding COVID-19 outbreaks and abusing health privacy laws, according to top experts in public information and health privacy. The experts said one of the most notable violations involves Governor Doug Ducey, Arizona Department of Health Services Director Dr. Cara Christ, and Maricopa County Health Department Director Dr. Rebecca Sunenshine. All three are refusing to release the names and locations of long-term care facilities with positive coronavirus cases. ABC15 interviewed Marsh and three other experts for this report. They include: David Bodney, a prominent First Amendment attorney based in Phoenix; Dan Barr, another Phoenix attorney with a long history of fighting for public access and records; and I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law professor who studies health law and privacy...For weeks, reporters have requested statistics and locations regarding long-term health facilities... “Truthfully, I think it erodes the public trust,” Cohen said. “Anybody who has a loved one in these nursing facilities has a lot of questions and probably deserves some answers.” Cohen cited the example of a New Jersey nursing home where more than 70 people have died. Some of the residents found deceased in their rooms.

Attorney General William Barr on Monday directed federal prosecutors to “be on the lookout” for public health measures put in place amid the coronavirus pandemic that might be running afoul of constitutional rights. In a two-page memorandum to the 93 U.S. attorneys, Barr cautioned that some state and local directives could be infringing on protected religious, speech and economic rights. “If a state or local ordinance crosses the line from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID-19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections, the Department of Justice may have an obligation to address that overreach in federal court,” Barr wrote...The Supreme Court has long held that constitutional rights can be lawfully restricted when emergency public health measures are in place, though the precise scope of government public health power is not clearly defined. Legal experts caution that governments can be prone to overreach amid exigent circumstances. “In times of emergency — including public health emergency — the temptation to violate individual rights is at its greatest, and the courts have often been called on to defend the rights of the vulnerable,” Harvard Law professor Glenn Cohen previously told The Hill.

As the number of COVID-19 cases continues to climb in the U.S., so do the risks facing health care workers on the frontlines of the pandemic. Across the country, we've been hearing about shortages of testing supplies, bodies stacking up in hospital morgues, and doctors and nurses still without the equipment they need to protect themselves and their patients. One of the reasons we know about all these things is because of the health care workers willing to speak up about what they’re seeing, whether it’s on social media or in the press. These health care workers are not just putting their lives at risk, but their jobs, too, as some hospitals have turned to disciplining, sometimes even firing, workers who speak publicly about their concerns. Some of you were concerned about sharing your thoughts — and voices — on our airwaves and texted us instead...For more on the risks facing health care workers who speak publicly, we turn to Glenn Cohen, professor at Harvard Law School and the faculty director of its bioethics center.

A Connecticut town has become a testing lab for a new kind of drone-based surveillance program. The company behind it say it can pick out symptoms from the air, raising questions about a world where we could be monitored without know it. NBC technology correspondent Jake Ward reports for TODAY as the Search for Solutions series continues. Glenn Cohen weighs in.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who issued some of the earliest social-distancing orders of any governor to combat the spread of the coronavirus, took issue with President Donald Trump’s tweeted solidarity with protesters in several states who were demanding an end to stay-at-home orders...We wondered whether it’s accurate to call state stay-at-home orders "laws," and whether they conflict with freedoms of speech and assembly under the First Amendment. So we asked legal experts. They agreed that while most fall under the heading of "proclamations" or "executive orders," they were issued under legal authority delegated by legislatures, meaning that have the same practical effect. The orders also would have a good chance of being deemed constitutional in court, they said...Experts told PolitiFact that despite the linguistic and procedural differences between orders and law, the stay-at-home orders effectively carry the force of law. "Calling it ‘the law of the state’ is fair," said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School professor. "Statutes passed by legislatures are what most people think of when one says ‘laws,’ but from a lawyer’s point of view, a common-law decision by a judge, a regulation, or an action by the governor would all qualify broadly as ‘the law.’"

As the world continues to fight against Covid-19 with lockdowns and social distancing, the notion of antibody screening—using data from serology tests to determine who is eligible to participate in society—is gaining traction...The concept has its issues—but already, there’s an app for that. Bizagi, a UK-based tech company whose normal business is helping companies like Adidas and Occidental Petroleum digitize their operations, today released “CoronaPass,” an app that will use an encrypted database to store information about users’ immune status, based on antibody test results provided by the user’s hospital or other healthcare provider...In any case, the more relevant law in the US is likely the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Glenn Cohen, a bioethics expert at Harvard Law School. ADA normally prevents employers from asking questions about an employee’s health that could be used to discriminate against them. But in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has loosened some ADA restrictions, including allowing employers to ask employees about relevant symptoms and take their temperature. “It pretty clearly signals the direction they are going,” Cohen said, “which is that [requesting antibody test results] will be deemed permissible, but they haven’t quite said that yet.”

With life-and-death issues of health and medicine foremost in our minds, ethics can get short shrift. To bring them to the public eye, the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics has issued the COVID-19 Rapid Response Impact Initiative, a series of white papers from some 40 thinkers on issues of justice, values, and civil liberties designed to inform policymakers during the crisis... “You have to make sure that with any tactics that you pursue to secure public health, you also look at the impact on our liberties,” said Allen, the James Bryant Conant University Professor and lead author on that first white paper. That paper — co-authored with Assistant Professor of Philosophy Lucas Stanczyk; James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law I. Glenn Cohen; Executive Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics Carmel Shachar; Columbia University Professor of Economics Rajiv Sethi; Microsoft economist Glen Weyl; and Georgetown Law Professor Rosa Brooks — says: “The goal is not to defeat the adversary at any cost but to preserve one’s society.”

With COVID-19 cases yet to peak locally, health care workers on the front lines of the growing outbreak face the possibility of having to make excruciating decisions about who gets care and who doesn’t. And in Missouri at least, doctors, nurses and others working under these crisis conditions currently lack any legal protections for such life-and-death decisions, worrying health experts and bioethicists. "When [health care workers] are making these decisions ... we do not want them thinking about medical malpractice or criminal liability. We want them to know ‘we have your back,’” Harvard Law Professor I. Glenn Cohen told KCUR in an email...“Denying patients such treatment, against their wishes, most likely will result in their death, but it will also make this scarce resource available to other patients who are more likely to survive if they receive ventilator support,” a recent opinion piece in the Journal of the American Medical Association declared. The piece, by Harvard's Cohen, another Harvard law professor and a doctor at the University of Pittsburgh, says that even though the risks of legal liability in such crisis circumstances are low, “even a small chance of a serious lawsuit could push physicians toward a less ethical and less efficacious first-come, first-serve allocation system for ventilators, leading to a major loss of lives.” Cohen told KCUR that while the risk of getting sued is small, it’s “non-trivial.” “We are asking people to act heroically, to engage in some of the most difficult decisions and actions any physician will undertake – withdrawing a ventilator from someone who will benefit against their wishes,’” Cohen said in an email.

During the Great Plague of London in 1665, houses where the infection appeared were painted with a red cross and sealed, condemning the occupants to death. Now the idea of visibly identifying the infected is being turned on its head as governments around the world look at how to reopen economies shattered by the coronavirus crisis. With hundreds of millions forced to stay home to stop the spread of the virus, politicians and public-health experts are searching for safe mechanisms to allow people to return to work without sparking a second wave of infections. Officials and scientists in Italy, Germany, and other countries are considering giving certificates to people who’ve recovered from Covid-19, the illness caused by the coronavirus...Wearing a bracelet or waving a piece of paper to show your immune status might sound like the plot of a dystopian novel, and scientists and public-policy experts are warning the prospect of “immunity passports” could make the current crisis worse. For one, they worry it could create a two-tiered workforce and perverse incentives for people to try to contract the virus, particularly millennials who might feel their chances of surviving it are high. “Like the ‘chickenpox parties’ of old, some workers will want to get infected,” says I. Glenn Cohen, a bioethics expert at Harvard Law School, referring to when parents deliberately exposed children to others with chickenpox at a young age, when symptoms tend to be milder. “That sounds crazy, but if having the antibodies becomes the cost of entering the job market and thus feeding your family, there may be workers who feel pressured into it.”

Even if there’s a baseball season this summer, Red Sox fans won’t see left-hander Chris Sale pitch. He underwent Tommy John surgery on March 30 and talked about the rehab process in a teleconference on Tuesday. “It’s going to be nine to 14 months of just getting after it and being able to get my body back in shape,” Sale said. “And I’m gonna have a better elbow than I did before.” But Sale’s elbow ligament reconstruction — and that of two other Major League Baseball pitchers — drew attention to a different timeline. They all happened after the American College of Surgeons recommended that elective procedures be minimized, postponed or canceled because of the coronavirus. And they raised new ethical issues for the sports world...But for bioethicists, there’s a dangerous ripple effect when high-profile, non-essential surgeries take place during a pandemic. “We have a message that we're all in it together, sink or swim together,” said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School professor who’s an expert in health law and bioethics. “And when we see people who are not sinking or swimming together, but swimming to the top, it's very disheartening and really erodes some of that solidarity.” Cohen also noted that it highlights inequities in the American health care system. Professional athletes can draw even more attention to those inequities. That happened when NBA players gained quick and easy access to coronavirus tests when most people had to wait.

Professors Robert Tsai and Glenn Cohen discuss the concepts of federalism and states’ rights in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.