Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Marketing Pharmaceuticals: A Constitutional Right to Sell Prescriber-Identified Data?

Abstract: Pharmaceutical companies have strong economic interests in influencing physician-prescribing behaviors. They advertise direct-to-the-consumer and to the physician. Beyond general marketing, manufacturers promote their drugs to physicians through “detailing” — sales representatives (“detailers”) visiting medical offices to persuade physicians to prescribe their products. By law, pharmacies receive specific information with every prescription, including the physician’s name, the drug, and the dose. Pharmacies sell these records to Prescription Drug Intermediaries (data miners), who use advanced computing to analyze prescriber-identified information (which physicians prescribe what drugs, in what dose, and with what prescribing patterns). Data miners, in turn, lease sophisticated reports to pharmaceutical companies to refine detailers’ marketing tactics, armed with knowledge about physician prescribing practices — for example, who are high-or-low prescribers, and early-or-late adopters of new drugs. Detailing raises vital health policy questions, including its effects on clinical decision-making (safety, quality, and cost) and the physician/patient relationship (privacy and professionalism). Yet, private companies claim a First Amendment right to buy and use prescribing data for product marketing. The tensions between privacy and commercial speech have deep implications for public health regulation.

Writing Off Race

Abstract: The constitutionality of affirmative action has now become one of the central topics in the politics of race. Ironically, the United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about affirmative action. The text never mentions the term, and the equal protection language in the Fourteenth Amendment simply begs the question of whether equality requires or precludes the use of affirmative action. The intent of the Framers is similarly unhelpful. We know that the drafters of the Fifth Amendment owned slaves, and the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment envisioned a racially stratified society. But the Fourteenth Amendment was itself an affirmative action measure, and few of us think that the racial prejudices of the Framers should continue to govern contemporary race relations. There are a host of fancier, non-interpretivist constitutional theories, including structural theories, moral theories, civic-republican theories, representation-reinforcement theories, public-choice theories, and postmodern critical-race theories, but none has sufficiently broad support to claim status as the one "authentic" approach to constitutional interpretation. Rather, they are parochial overlays imposed on a Constitution that is best understood as defining the terms of engagement for political bargaining. Given the increasingly transparent dominance of political policy considerations in Supreme Court constitutional adjudication, it is not surprising that recent strands of constitutional scholarship have chosen to advocate judicial minimalism, and even the curtailment of judicial review. Because the Constitution says absolutely nothing about affirmative action, the Supreme Court should have absolutely nothing to say about it either. Rather, the political branches should set the nation's affirmative action policy, and they should do so with political leadership provided by the President. President Clinton has both advocated and actively practiced affirmative action to the extent that he could do so without offending the racial policy preferences of the Supreme Court. But he has failed to perform a presidential function that has even greater constitutional significance. He has failed to contest the Supreme Court's usurpation of racial policymaking power from the political branches of government.

Scientific Research and Discretion

Abstract: In ‘Scientific Research and Moral Rectitude’ Robert Hoffman defends the scientific community against critics who maintain that ‘the researcher's claim to freedom of inquiry should be upheld only if his discovery does not adversely affect mankind….’ He uses two arguments in his defence, both of which purport to show that this sort of criticism is logically misconceived.

Why Healthy Behavior Is the Hard Choice

Abstract: Our society is structured to encourage unhealthy diets and physically inactive lifestyles, which are key risk factors for chronic diseases including diabetes, heart diseases, and cancers. We are bombarded with advertisements for hyperprocessed foods laden with saturated fat, salt, sugar, and refined carbohydrates, “low-fat” foods often contain high amounts of sugar and salt, and parks and recreation spaces are often inaccessible or unsafe. Four simple ideas - taxes on unhealthy products, product reformulation, improving the informational environment, and increasing healthy food accessibility - could make healthy behaviors the “default” choice for most consumers. First, taxes on unhealthy products, such as sugary beverages, increase prices and reduce demand, especially among youth and low-income groups. Revenue generated through taxes could be earmarked to increase access to and affordability of healthier alternatives, such as subsidies for fruit and vegetables. Second, product reformulation regulations improve the nutritional value of food and beverage products by requiring companies to gradually reduce fats, sugars, and sodium in packaged foods. Third, rules requiring clear and comprehensive nutritional information help consumers to select healthier products. Some jurisdictions are considering going further, by requiring explicit warning labels on unhealthy products such as sugary drinks. In addition to informing consumers, advertising restrictions minimize exposure to aggressive industry advertising, which often targets children. Finally, zoning and licensing laws limiting fast-food outlets and incentivizing the sale of healthier products promote accessibility and affordability of healthy, nutritious food.In America, and throughout the world, perverse societal structures encourage unhealthy diets and physically inactive lifestyles. With obesity reaching epidemic levels and chronic diseases posing real harms to families, the health system, and productivity, it is time to structure so.

Process Pluralism in Transitional/Restorative Justice - Lessons from Dispute Resolution for Cultural Variations in Goals beyond Rule of Law and Democracy Development (Argentina and Chile)

Abstract: This article reviews some of the key issues in transitional justice process and institutional design, based on my research and experience working and living in several post-conflict societies, and suggests that cultural and political variations in transitional justice design, practices, and processes are necessary to accomplish plural goals. The idea of process pluralism, derived from the more general fields of conflict resolution and ‘alternative dispute resolution’ in legal contexts, is an essential part of transitional justice, where multiple processes may occur simultaneously or in sequence over time (e.g. truth and reconciliation processes, with or without amnesty, prosecutions, lustration and/or more local legal and communitarian processes), depending on both individual and collective preferences and resources. Transitional justice is itself ‘in transition’ as iterative learning has developed from assessment of different processes in different contexts (post-military dictatorships, civil wars, and international and sub-national conflicts). This article draws on examples from Argentina’s and Chile’s emergence from post-military dictatorships to describe and analyze a plurality of processes, including more formal governmental processes, but also those formed by civil society groups at sub-national levels. This article suggests that ‘democracy development’ and legalistic ‘rule of law’ goals and institutional design may not necessarily be the only desiderata in transitional justice, where more than the ‘legal’ and ‘governmental’ is at stake for more peaceful human flourishing. To use an important concept from dispute resolution, the “forum must fit the fuss”, and there are many different kinds of ‘fusses’ to be dealt with in transitional justice, at different levels of society – more than legal and governmental but also social, cultural and reparative.