Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)最新文献

Food and beverage marketing directed at children is of increasing concern to the public health and legal communities. The new administration at the Federal Trade Commission and abundant science on the topic make it a particularly opportune time for the government to reconsider regulating marketing directed at youth. This Article analyzes the Commission's authority to regulate food and beverage marketing directed at children under its jurisdiction over unfair and deceptive acts and practices to determine which avenue is most viable. The author finds that the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to regulate deceptive marketing practices directed at vulnerable populations. Although the Commission can issue individual orders, its remedial power to initiate rules would better address the pervasiveness of modern marketing practices. The Commission does not currently have the power to regulate unfair marketing to children; however, even if Congress reinstated this authority, the Commission's authority over deceptive marketing may be preferable to regulate these practices. Deceptive communications are not protected by the First Amendment and the deceptive standard matches the science associated with marketing to children. The Federal Trade Commission has the authority to initiate rulemaking in the realm of food and beverage marketing to children as deceptive communications in interstate commerce, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. However, to effectuate this process, Congress would need to grant the Commission the authority to do so under the Administrative Procedures Act.

This Article analyzes corporate speech problems through the framework of corporate law. The focus here is on the "discourse norms" that regulate corporate speech to various corporate stakeholders, including shareholders, workers, and consumers. I argue that these "discourse norms" should be understood as default terms in the "nexus-of-contracts" that comprises the corporation. Having reviewed the failure of corporate law as it bears on the interests of non-shareholding stakeholders such as workers and consumers, I urge the adoption of prescriptive discourse norms as an approach to reforming corporate governance in a socially useful manner.

Imagine that the United States did not have universal public education. What would the politics of extending access to education look like? It might have a nightmarish cast but also look rather familiar. Thinking about that yields some disturbing implications about the politics of health reform and, in particular, the politics of universal coverage within the broader policy discussion about "health reform."

As scientific understandings of genetics advance, researchers require increasingly rich datasets that combine genomic data from large numbers of individuals with medical and other personal information. Linking individuals' genetic data and personal information precludes anonymity and produces medically significant information--a result not contemplated by the established legal and ethical conventions governing human genomic research. To pursue the next generation of human genomic research and commerce in a responsible fashion, scientists, lawyers, and regulators must address substantial new issues, including researchers' duties with respect to clinically significant data, the challenges to privacy presented by genomic data, the boundary between genomic research and commerce, and the practice of medicine. This Article presents a new model for understanding and addressing these new challenges--a "public genomics" premised on the idea that ethically, legally, and socially responsible genomics research requires openness, not privacy, as its organizing principle. Responsible public genomics combines the data contributed by informed and fully consenting information altruists and the research potential of rich datasets in a genomic commons that is freely and globally available. This Article examines the risks and benefits of this public genomics model in the context of an ambitious genetic research project currently under way--the Personal Genome Project. This Article also (i) demonstrates that large-scale genomic projects are desirable, (ii) evaluates the risks and challenges presented by public genomics research, and (iii) determines that the current legal and regulatory regimes restrict beneficial and responsible scientific inquiry while failing to adequately protect participants. The Article concludes by proposing a modified normative and legal framework that embraces and enables a future of responsible public genomics.

Epigenetics is a rapidly evolving scientific field of inquiry examining how a wide range of environmental, social, and nutritional exposures can dramatically control how genes are expressed without changing the underlying DNA. Research has demonstrated that epigenetics plays a large role in human development and in disease causation. In a sense, epigenetics blurs the distinction between "nature" and "nurture" as experiences (nurture) become a part of intrinsic biology (nature). Remarkably, some epigenetic modifications are durable across generations, meaning that exposures from our grandparents' generation might affect our health now, even if we have not experienced the same exposures. In the same vein, current exposures could affect the health of not only individuals currently living but also future generations. Given the relative novelty of epigenetics research and the multifactorial nature of human development and disease causation, it is unlikely that conclusive proof can be established showing that particular exposures lead to epigenetic risks that manifest into specific conditions. Using the Capabilities Approach ("CA") developed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, this article argues that epigenetic risk is not merely a medical issue, but that it more generally implicates the underlying fairness and justice of our social contract. For instance, how we develop mentally or physically has a tremendous impact upon our inherent capabilities and our set of life options. The CA prompts us to ask questions such as: (1) what impact do particular epigenetic risks have on our ability to exercise free choices; (2) are these risks avoidable; and (3) how are these risks distributed across society? Due to the complex nature of epigenetic risk, tort law is predictably incapable of addressing this harm. Further, while regulatory agencies possess the statutory authority to begin addressing epigenetic harms, currently these agencies are not attuned to measure or to respond to this type of harm. This article argues that it is imperative to initiate a regulatory framework to address epigenetic risk from specific substances even if conclusive proof of disease causation cannot be established. Shifting the burden of generating epigenetic risk data to producers of suspected harmful substances serves as a start. As information concerning epigenetic risks accrues, the regulatory response should evolve concurrently. As part of a dynamic policy-making approach our goals need to encompass the following: (i) promotion of knowledge in the scientific, legal, and public domains; (ii) assessment and modification of current regulations to address preventable risk; and (iii) an overarching commitment to protect human capabilities in an equitable manner.

The breakneck speed of scientific developments in embryonic stem (ES) cell technologies is, commensurately, ushering forth new bioethical debate(s) regarding these cells. A framework of bioethical principles is presented here to guide biomedical scientists and others engaged in improving human welfare through the application of ES cell-based therapies.