Law Commons^™

Doctors, Patients, And Pills--A System Popping Under Too Much Physician Discretion? A Law-Policy Prescription To Make Drug Approval More Meaningful In The Delivery Of Health Care, Michael J. Malinowski

Michael J. Malinowski

This article challenges the scope of physician discretion to engage in off-label use of prescription drugs. The discretion to prescribe dimensions beyond the clinical research that puts new drugs on pharmacy shelves has been shaped by two historic influences: a legacy of physician paternalism, solidarity, autonomy, and self-determination that predates the contemporary commercialization of medicine by more than half a century, and regulatory necessity due to the limits of science and innate crudeness of pharmaceuticals prior to the genomics revolution (drug development and delivery based upon genetic expression). Although both factors have changed immensely, the standard for drug approval has …

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 …

Drug Development--Stuck In A State Of Puberty?: Regulatory Reform Of Human Clinical Research To Raise Responsiveness To The Reality Of Human Variability, Michael J. Malinowski

Michael J. Malinowski

Scathing critiques of the Food and Drug Administration's (“FDA”) performance by the Government Accountability Office and Institutes of Medicine, a plummet in innovative new drug approvals in spite of significant annual investment increases in biopharmaceutical research and development (“R&D”), and market controversies such as the painkiller Vioxx and the diabetes drug Avandia (both associated with significantly escalated risks of heart attacks and strokes) have raised doubts about the sufficiency of FDA *364 regulation. This Article questions how prescription medicines reach the market and proposes law-policy reforms to enhance the FDA's science standard for human clinical trials and new drug approvals. …

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

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

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.

Dealing With The Realities Of Race And Ethnicity: A Bioethics-Centered Argument In Favor Of Race-Based Genetics Research, Michael J. Malinowski

Michael J. Malinowski

No abstract provided.

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.

Dealing With The Realities Of Race And Ethnicity: A Bioethics-Centered Argument In Favor Of Race-Based Genetics Research, Michael J. Malinowski

Michael J. Malinowski

No abstract provided.

Dealing With The Reality Of Race And Ethnicity: A Bioethics-Centered Argument In Favor Of Race-Based Genetics Research , Michael J. Malinowski

Michael J. Malinowski

This article challenges proposals to apply law to greatly constrain if not wholly prohibit race-based genetics research with arguments based in bioethics, research pragmatism, and genetic science. The article concludes that proposals to stretch U.S. antidiscrimination jurisprudence to regulate away race and ethnicity in genetics research are misguided at best.