Tomorrow, Wednesday, October 3 at 5:30 pm, Bill of Health co-editor I. Glenn Cohen will participate in a live national broadcast on Actionspeaksradio.org regarding Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the 1980 case that first established the right to patent life.
In recent months, women’s reproduction has been in the spotlight. A few weeks ago, the Republican Party adopted an anti-abortion platform calling for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion and making no exception for victims in cases of incest, rape, or to save the woman’s life. Ironically, some of the very same party leaders responsible for drafting the amendment issued demands for the Missouri Congressman, Todd Akin, to resign or step aside in a hotly contested Senate race after he made controversial claims that “legitimate” rapes rarely result in pregnancies.
As the gender war plays out in high profile ways, we should be aware that abortion politics is not the only area in which women’s reproductive rights are closely scrutinized and under threat of political attack. Relatively little attention has focused on the pernicious on-the-ground forms of criminal policing targeted at pregnant women across America.
Since the late 1980s, state legislatures have enacted criminal feticide laws that now ensnare women for a broad range of activities, including falling down steps, suffering drug addiction, refusing cesarean sections, or attempting suicide. For example, in 2010 Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed into law the “Criminal Homicide and Abortion Revisions Act,” which specifically applies to miscarriages and other fetal harms that result from “knowing acts” committed by women. A prior version of the bill drafted by state legislator Carl Wimmer authorized life imprisonment for pregnant women who engage in reckless behavior during pregnancy that could result in miscarriage and stillbirth. Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota, and some other states define child abuse as intentional or neglectful harm to the fetus.
By Cansu Canca
A recent New York Times article drew attention to an issue with increasing importance as technology develops. Gene samples collected under conditions of anonymity reveal more and more information that may be of crucial importance for the subjects or their relatives. Researchers feel a moral obligation to disclose these important findings, which may even be life-saving, to the subjects. Yet, the anonymity clause in the consent forms prevents them from doing so.
Whether or not researchers can or must disclose the information in spite of the anonymity clause mainly turns on two issues: the scope of the informed consent and the reach of the obligation for beneficence.
By Adriana Benedict
Last week, Public Citizen published a Health GAP analysis entitled “Leaked TPP Investment Chapter Presents a Grave Threat to Access to Medicines,” in which Professor Brook Baker explains four ways in which access to medicines is compromised by the USTR’s leaked investment chapter proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. The problematic provisions he identifies — inclusion of intellectual property (IP) in the definition of “investment”, ambiguous scope of minimum standards of treatment, inadequate exceptions and limitations for public interest measures, and performance requirement limitations preventing development of local and sustainable production—are not new, but have been included either implicitly or explicitly in countless bilateral investment treaties (BITs) (including the U.S. Model BIT) and the investment chapters of free trade agreements (FTAs) (including virtually all US FTAs and the proposed EU-India FTA). Such inclusion gives more “teeth” to foreign investors’ IP rights, but what of access to medicines?
For all the attention by legal scholars, doctors, and politicians to the global organ shortage—and particularly the crisis in the United States, relatively little is said about tissue demand and that supply industry. Well known are the horrific stories involving black markets specializing in organs like kidneys and livers. The troubling stories of Indian women, Pakistani men, and Brazilian boys pillaged for parts and left suffering with grotesque scars, owing debts, and in medical need are chronicled by a growing chorus of scholars (see here, here, and here). Even those of us who support incentives to encourage organ donation strongly oppose human rights abuses paraded as free markets. What scholars continually overlook, however, are the surreptitious, global tissue trades that effect more people and have the potential to cause greater harm, such as diseased tissues, bones, and other body parts entering the stream of US commerce and transplantation.
Several years ago, I presaged some of these problems and wrote about these issues; one of the articles can be found here. More recently, an international consortium of journalist have come on board with an eye-opening special report, revealing black markets in Europe for human tissues and bones. Their story begins in the Ukraine, where earlier this year security guards discovered body parts and skin stuffed into coolers, and envelopes filled with cash–transported on a “grimy white minibus.” Authorities stumbled onto this body part heist thinking that a mass-murder had been uncovered. To their surprise, the bus and its contents were headed off to Germany before shipment of the parcels to Korea, the US and other countries.
On its own, tissue transplantation makes as much sense as organ transplantation, because they help to improve patients’ quality of life and in some instances may be vital to saving lives, such as heart valve transplants. The problem is that the dark-side of this industry operates nefariously. Sometimes this includes pillaging parts from cadavers dead from communicable diseases such as HIV and hepatitis or acquiring tissues through illegal means, or mislabeling parts—claiming that body parts are from Germany, when in fact they are from developing countries. Often companies that trade on stock exchanges are linked to the darker side. For example, investigators discovered that a US business, RTI, located in Florida is linked to the Ukraine discovery. As Dr. Martin Zizi remarked to reporters, “once a [body part] is in the European Union, it can be shipped to the U.S. with few questions asked…They assume you’ve done the quality check, [but] we are more careful with fruit and vegetables than with body parts.”
In May 2012, Health Canada granted market authorization for Prochymal. This decision is the world’s first regulatory approval of a stem cell drug (as well as the first therapy for acute graft-vs-host disease, a serious complication of bone marrow transplantation that kills up to 80% of children affected). Like Prochymal, many stem cell products have exciting therapeutic potential, such as bone regeneration and cartilage formation. And the global stem cell product market is estimated to reach $6.6 billion by 2016. However, side-effects remain unknown, and the regulations for such products are largely non-existent. So what should happen if a patient gets hurt?
Stephen R. Munzer (UCLA School of Law) discusses this question in his latest article in the Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, and recommends that qualified strict liability should govern product liability for stem cell products. Read More