Regulating (for the benefit of) future persons: a different perspective on the FDA's jurisdiction to regulate human reproductive cloning

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the position that human reproductive cloning falls within its regulatory jurisdiction. This position has been subject to criticism on both procedural and substantive grounds. Some have contended that the FDA has failed to follow administrative law principles in asserting its jurisdiction, while others claim the FDA is ill suited to the task of addressing the ethical and social implications of human cloning. This Article argues, that, notwithstanding these criticisms, the FDA could plausibly assert jurisdiction over human cloning as a form of human gene therapy, an area in which the FDA is already regarded as having primary regulatory authority. Such an assertion would require that the FDA's jurisdiction extend to products affecting future persons, i.e., those not yet born. This Article demonstrates, for the first time, that such jurisdiction was implicit in the enactment of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that the FDA has historically relied on such authority in promulgating regulations for drugs and devices.

Responsive regulation of Internet pharmacy practice

Professor Brushwood discusses the effectiveness of the Internet as a medium for carrying out pharmaceutical care. A proponent of Internet pharmacy, Professor Brushwood argues that pharmacy regulators could best protect and promote public health through responsive Internet regulation. Wary of state paternalism, the article advocates the Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Site program of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy as a model method for regulating pharmacy practices over the Internet.

The use of Food and Drug Administration--approved medications for unlabeled (off-label) uses. The legal and ethical implications

Physicians increasingly use Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs (medication) for unlabeled (off-label) indications. The ethical and legal implications of these actions are not always clear. In this article, I examine the common law and federal statutory regulations concerning this issue and also explore some of the ethical and financial issues involved.

The federal regulation of prescription drug advertising and promotion

Prescription drug advertising has been regulated by the Food and Drug Administration since 1962. In the past decade, pharmaceutical companies have employed new communication mechanisms to reach physicians and, with increasing frequency, consumers. Examples of physician-oriented promotional activities are medical symposia and teleconferences. Consumer-oriented efforts include press conferences, use of celebrity spokespeople, and direct-to-consumer advertising. The Food and Drug Administration has asserted its legal jurisdiction over these nontraditional promotional activities and is regulating them on a case-by-case basis. As nontraditional promotional efforts become more prevalent, the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory framework must be able to meet the challenges of a changing environment.