Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorHutt, Peter Bartonen_US
dc.contributor.authorHellman, Matthewen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-07T20:43:26Z
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.citationCOMMERCIAL DRUG CLAIMS, THE FDA, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT (2001 Third Year Paper)en
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:8852198
dc.description.abstractIn two strands of what can only be described as extremely protracted litigation, the courts have begun to articulate a framework by which to evaluate these competing claims. Although the doctrine is hardly settled, in two lines of cases, Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman and Pearson v. Shalala, courts have shifted the doctrine from requiring a unilateral ban on non-FDA approved advertising to a regime in which manufacturers of drugs and dietary supplements have more freedom to publicize their products, so long as they are accompanied with appropriate disclaimers. I argue in this paper that while this more nuanced approach is surely an improvement over the FDA’s adamant refusal to acknowledge any First Amendment protection for these claims, it is still not entirely clear how much protection these claims should deserve in the face of public safety concerns. Because courts have not fully considered these countervailing concerns in granting First Amendment protections we must wait for a fully articulated and justifiable framework for weighing the speech interests in these cases against the interest of public safety.en
dc.language.isoen_USen
dash.licenseLAAen_US
dc.subjectFood and Drug Lawen
dc.subjectcommercial speechen
dc.subjectFDAen
dc.subjectFirst Amendmenten
dc.titleCOMMERCIAL DRUG CLAIMS, THE FDA, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENTen
dc.typePaper (for course/seminar/workshop)en_US
dc.date.available2012-06-07T20:43:26Z
dash.authorsorderedfalse


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record