Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein’S Grave: Access To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein’S Grave: Access To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Michael J. Malinowski
All U.S. federal research funding triggers regulations to protect human subjects known as the Common Rule, a collaborative government effort that spans seventeen federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has been in the process of re-evaluating the Common Rule comprehensively after decades of application and in response to the jolting advancement of biopharmaceutical science. The Common Rule designates specific groups as “vulnerable populations”—pregnant women, fetuses, children, prisoners, and those with serious mental comprehension challenges—and imposes heightened protections of them. This article addresses a question at the cornerstone of regulations to protect human subjects as biopharmaceutical research and …
Where Babies And Death-Row Inmates Intersect: Is Arbitrary Agency Decision-Making Supported Under Existing Law?, Lisa C. Blanton Bs., Mj.
Where Babies And Death-Row Inmates Intersect: Is Arbitrary Agency Decision-Making Supported Under Existing Law?, Lisa C. Blanton Bs., Mj.
Lisa C. Blanton BS., MJ.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the executive branch regulatory agency primarily responsible for protecting the nation’s drug products.[1] The FDA recently made highly inconsistent decisions surrounding a new drug for the prevention of pre-term birth, Makena™ (hydroxyprogesterone caproate). During a lengthy approval process, FDA made laudatory public announcements and demonstrated high programmatic preference to expedite approval of Makena by assigning orphan status[2] and granting accelerated “fast-track” approval time-frames.[3] Despite these actions, within weeks of the approval, the FDA issued aggressive public statements against the product’s efficacy and safety and made supportive comments about a non-FDA …
Visual Gut Punch: Persuasion, Emotion, And The Constitutional Meaning Of Graphic Disclosure, Ellen P. Goodman
Visual Gut Punch: Persuasion, Emotion, And The Constitutional Meaning Of Graphic Disclosure, Ellen P. Goodman
ellen p. goodman
The ability of government to “nudge” with information mandates, or merely to inform consumers of risks, is circumscribed by First Amendment interests that have been poorly articulated in the relevant law and commentary. New graphic cigarette warning labels supplied courts with the first opportunity to assess the informational interests attending novel forms of product disclosures. The D.C. Circuit enjoined them as unconstitutional, compelled by a narrative that the graphic labels converted government from objective informer to ideological persuader, shouting its warning to manipulate consumer decisions. This interpretation will leave little room for graphic disclosure and is already being used to …
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein's Grave: Accesss To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein's Grave: Accesss To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Michael J. Malinowski
Abstract
All U.S. federal research funding triggers regulations to protect human subjects known as the Common Rule, a collaborative government effort that spans seventeen federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has been in the process of re-evaluating the Common Rule comprehensively after decades of application and in response to the jolting advancement of biopharmaceutical science. The Common Rule designates specific groups as “vulnerable populations”—pregnant women, fetuses, children, prisoners, and those with serious mental comprehension challenges—and imposes heightened protections of them. This article addresses a question at the cornerstone of regulations to protect human subjects as biopharmaceutical research …
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein’S Grave: Access To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Throwing Dirt On Doctor Frankenstein’S Grave: Access To Experimental Treatments At The End Of Life, Michael J. Malinowski
Michael J. Malinowski
All U.S. federal research funding triggers regulations to protect human subjects known as the Common Rule, a collaborative government effort that spans seventeen federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services has been in the process of re-evaluating the Common Rule comprehensively after decades of application and in response to the jolting advancement of biopharmaceutical science. The Common Rule designates specific groups as “vulnerable populations”—pregnant women, fetuses, children, prisoners, and those with serious mental comprehension challenges—and imposes heightened protections of them. This article addresses a question at the cornerstone of regulations to protect human subjects as biopharmaceutical research and …
A Discourse On The Public Nature Of Research In Contemporary Life Science: A Law-Policy Proposal To Promote The Public Nature Of Science In An Era Of Academia-Industry Integration, Michael J. Malinowski
A Discourse On The Public Nature Of Research In Contemporary Life Science: A Law-Policy Proposal To Promote The Public Nature Of Science In An Era Of Academia-Industry Integration, Michael J. Malinowski
Michael J. Malinowski
This article addresses the impact of integration of academia, industry, and government on the public nature of research. The article concludes that, while the integration has benefited science immensely, regulatory measures should be taken to restore the public nature of research in an age of integration.
A Failure To Consider: Why Lawmakers Create Risk By Ignoring Trade Obligations, David R. Kocan Professor
A Failure To Consider: Why Lawmakers Create Risk By Ignoring Trade Obligations, David R. Kocan Professor
David R. Kocan Professor
The U.S. Congress frequently passes laws facially unrelated to trade that significantly impact U.S. trade relations. These impacts are often harmful, significant, and long-lasting. Despite this fact, these bills rarely receive adequate consideration of how they will impact trade. Without this consideration, Congress cannot properly conduct a cost-benefit analysis necessary to pass effective laws. To remedy this problem, the U.S. Trade Representative should evaluate U.S. domestic law to determine whether it is consistent with international trade obligations. Moreover, the U.S. Congress committee structure should be amended so that laws that might impact trade are considered within that light. In the …