Gatekeepers of Extermination: SS Camp Physicians and Their Scope of Action

The role of camp physicians of the Waffen-SS (“Armed SS,” military branch of the Nazi Party’s Schutzstaffel) in the implementation of the Holocaust has been the subject of limited research, even though they occupied a key position in the extermination process. From 1943 and 1944 onward, SS camp physicians made the individual medical decisions on whether each prisoner was fit for work or was immediately subjected to extermination, not only at the Auschwitz labor and extermination camp but also in pure labor camps like Buchenwald and Dachau. This was due to a functional change in the concentration camp system during World War II, where the selection of prisoners, which had previously been carried out by nonmedical SS camp staff, became a main task of the medical camp staff. The initiative to transfer sole responsibility for the selections came from the physicians themselves and was influenced by structural racism, sociobiologically oriented medical expertise, and pure economic rationality. It can be seen as a further radicalization of the decision making practiced until then in the murder of the sick. However, there was a far-reaching scope of action within the hierarchical structures of the Waffen-SS medical service on both the macro and micro levels. But what can this teach us for medical practice today? The historical experience of the Holocaust and Nazi medicine can provide a moral compass for physicians to be sensitive to the potential for abuse of power and ethical dilemmas inherent in medicine. Thus, the lessons from the Holocaust could be a starting point for reflecting on the value of human life in the modern economized and highly hierarchical medical sector.

It's Time to Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act

Meaning at the Fingertips

Combined Gabapentinoid and Opioid Use: The Consequences of Shifting Prescribing Trends

Hospital Readmission Rates in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 171, No 2

Background: Medicare's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program reports risk-standardized readmission rates for traditional Medicare but not Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Objective: To compare readmission rates between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare. Design: Retrospective cohort study linking the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file with the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). Setting: 4748 U.S. acute care hospitals. Patients: Patients aged 65 years or older hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n = 841 613), congestive heart failure (CHF) (n = 1 458 652), or pneumonia (n = 2 020 365) between 2011 and 2014. Measurements: 30-day readmissions. Results: Among admissions for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia identified in MedPAR, 29.2%, 38.0%, and 37.2%, respectively, did not have a corresponding record in HEDIS. Of these, 18.9% for AMI, 23.7% for CHF, and 18.3% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission that was identified in MedPAR. However, among index admissions appearing in HEDIS, 14.4% for AMI, 18.4% for CHF, and 13.9% for pneumonia resulted in a readmission. Patients in Medicare Advantage had lower unadjusted readmission rates than those in traditional Medicare for all 3 conditions (16.6% vs. 17.1% for AMI, 21.4% vs. 21.7% for CHF, and 16.3% vs. 16.4% for pneumonia). However, after standardization, patients in Medicare Advantage had higher readmission rates than patients in traditional Medicare for AMI (17.2% vs. 16.9%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5 percentage point]), CHF (21.7% vs. 21.4%; difference, 0.3 percentage point [CI, 0.2 to 0.5 percentage point]), and pneumonia (16.5% vs. 16.0%; difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, 0.4 to 0.6 percentage point]). Rate differences increased between 2011 and 2014. Limitation: Potential unobserved differences between populations. Conclusion: The HEDIS data underreported hospital admissions for 3 common medical conditions, and readmission rates were higher among patients with underreported admissions. Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had higher risk-adjusted 30-day readmission rates than traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Primary Funding Source: National Institute on Aging.

The Next Stage of Buprenorphine Care for Opioid Use Disorder

Buprenorphine has been used internationally for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) since the 1990s and has been available in the United States for more than a decade. Initial practice recommendations were intentionally conservative, were based on expert opinion, and were influenced by methadone regulations. Since 2003, the American crisis of OUD has dramatically worsened, and much related empirical research has been undertaken. The findings in several important areas conflict with initial clinical practice that is still prevalent. This article reviews research findings in the following 7 areas: location of buprenorphine induction, combining buprenorphine with a benzodiazepine, relapse during buprenorphine treatment, requirements for counseling, uses of drug testing, use of other substances during buprenorphine treatment, and duration of buprenorphine treatment. For each area, evidence for needed updates and modifications in practice is provided. These modifications will facilitate more successful, evidence-based treatment and care for patients with OUD.

Ethical Obligations Regarding Short-Term Global Health Clinical Experiences: An American College of Physicians Position Paper

This American College of Physicians position paper aims to inform ethical decision making surrounding participation in short-term global health clinical care experiences. Although the positions are primarily intended for practicing physicians, they may apply to other health care professionals and should inform how institutions, organizations, and others structure short-term global health experiences. The primary goal of short-term global health clinical care experiences is to improve the health and well-being of the individuals and communities where they occur. In addition, potential benefits for participants in global health include increased awareness of global health issues, new medical knowledge, enhanced physical diagnosis skills when practicing in low-technology settings, improved language skills, enhanced cultural sensitivity, a greater capacity for clinical problem solving, and an improved sense of self-satisfaction or professional satisfaction. However, these activities involve several ethical challenges. Addressing these challenges is critical to protecting patient welfare in all geographic locales, promoting fair and equitable care globally, and maintaining trust in the profession. This paper describes 5 core positions that focus on ethics and the clinical care context and provides case scenarios to illustrate them.

It's Time to Revise the Uniform Determination of Death Act

Annals for Educators - April 2026

Advancing Clinical Mastery: An Essential Element of Primary Care Revitalization