Search results

Biotechnology, whether in the context of new drugs derived from DNA and genetic technology, genetically modified food, or biologics making use of living cells, raises ethical concerns at a variety of different levels. At the research level, there is concern that the very nature of research is being subverted, rather than enhanced, by entrepreneurship. This area of ethical concern has intensified in the United States as a result of the conflicts of interests resulting from the growing alliance between University academia and private industry in the research enterprise. As we travel down the research path into development of a drug or technology, ethical questions arise with respect to protecting human subjects and society from danger and exploitation by researchers. As development gives way to marketing and dissemination of a new product, government regulators are pressed to get drugs and biologics through the regulatory pipeline into the market faster, walking an ethical tightrope between speed and safety. As new biotechnology products enter the market place, doctors and patients traverse yet another tightrope, that between unknown risk and the promise of benefit. And finally, patent protection is increasingly viewed as a unethical culprit in keeping prices high and depriving the global poor from lifesaving drugs and biologics. Bioethics has, to date, been largely a creation of Western research and medicine. As such it is wholly inadequate to respond to the cascade of ethical issues that flow from a vibrant biotechnology industry. And if biotechnology is in its infancy, as most believe, it is crucial that scientists, entrepreneurs and governments engage in dialogue about the ethical and societal questions raised on the road of scientific progress. Note: Posted with the permission of the World Association for Medical Law and the journal, Medicine and Law.

The University of Washington School of Law Center for Law, Science and Global Health was asked to "convene a study on the Washington State Supreme Court decision Volk v. DeMeerleer, 386 P.3d 254 (Wash. 2016)." The Volk case elaborated on the duty of mental health providers to protect foreseeable victims of a dangerous patient. The goal of the study was to evaluate whether or not this case "substantially changed the law [in Washington] on the duty of care owed to third parties by mental health providers and whether it has had an impact on access to mental health services in the state." See Appendix A, Volk Appropriation, §(25)(a). This portion of our report details the results of the nationwide comprehensive survey of law and how Washington's current law compares to other jurisdictions. The legislative appropriation for a comprehensive review of "duty to warn" and "duty to protect" law required three major subsets of legal research. First, it required an in-depth 50- state survey of legislative and case law related to the duty to warn and duty to protect. In the interest of being complete, we also included the District of Columbia. See Appendix A, Volk Appropriation, §(25(a)(i). Second, it included a detailed historical review and analysis of "duty to protect" lawsuits brought in Washington against outpatient mental health care providers since the decision in Petersen v. State, 671 P.2d 230 (Wash. 1983), the preeminent case in Washington prior to Volk. See Appendix A, Volk Appropriation, §(25(a)(iii). Finally, it included an analysis of how the Volk decision changed the law in Washington and how "Washington state's law compares to other states." See Appendix A, Volk Appropriation, §(25(a)(i). NOTE: All cases and statutes referred to in this text are available in the Appendix I, the complete summary of the fifty states and District of Columbia, and in the Supplementary Materials (each state's statute and cases) available on the submitted USB drives or archived with the House Judiciary Committee. Note: Commissioned ...