Recently, Johnson & Johnson had a $2.2 billion settlement, rendering it the third highest pharmaceutical fraud settlement made with the United States government. Will this trend continue, or will Johnson & Johnson learn from their mistakes as well as those of their predecessors?

Although consultant pharmacists purported to provide “independent recommendations based on their clinical judgment, Johnson & Johnson viewed the pharmacists as an ‘extension of [J&J’s] sales force,” the Justice Department claimed. That, more or less, is what Johnson & Johnson was sued for; drug-makers are legally only allowed to promote their product for cures in the way that the FDA has approved of them.

In a class action case, Johnson & Johnson was said to have wrongfully marketed their drugs created to treat schizophrenia, Risperdal and Invega, as dementia medication for elderly patients. Furthermore, the company allegedly lied about Risperdal’s side effects and withheld information that the medication led to diabetes. Although legally settling, the company still denied the allegations. Claiming innocence, Johnson & Johnson stated, “the settlement of the civil allegations is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing, and the company expressly denies the government’s civil allegations.” In defending their drug, they claimed Risperdal to be “safe and effective for its approved indications”, and “an important treatment option for people with serious mental illness.”

Sure, the government has cracked down on Johnson & Johnson, and now the company is paying $2.2 billion, but does that actually mean anything? Johnson & Johnson has a net worth of $65.03 billion. In preparation for this case, the company set aside money to pay their penalties, rendering the fine insignificant for a company of great wealth and success.

So, will anything change from this settlement? Michael Ullmann, Vice President and General Counsel of Johnson & Johnson reflected, “today we reached closure on complex legal matters spanning almost a decade. This resolution [which] allows us to move forward and continue to focus on delivering innovative solutions that improve and enhance the health and well-being of patients around the world.”

I speculate that the government will tighten the reigns and harshly proctor the company, as well as extend this strict scrutiny to others drug-providers. But as a result of the simple nature of medications, being that they were released to the public shortly after their creation, and the system of pharmaceutical representatives, a heavily corrupted system, long term changes or consequential changes seem extremely unlikely to occur.

Shedding light on the impact of this case, Attorney General Eric Holder said “every time pharmaceutical companies engage in this type of conduct, they corrupt medical decisions by healthcare providers, jeopardize the public health, and take money out of taxpayers’ pockets.” Pharmaceutical representation is a capitalist system that encourages sales people to push drugs onto doctors, hospitals, and nursing homes which economically resonates, and yet morally conflicts with our way of conducting business. People become less important than businesses, as finances dictate our capitalist ways. C’est la vie. Being third in the country sounds significant, but the ranking, like China’s GDP, its just an arbitrary number in this case, meaningless.

[NPR] [NYTimes] [CNN] [J&J]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DraconianRain via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Our Everyday Drug Dealer appeared first on Law Street.

Until recently, Zimbabwe’s laws required heavy penalties for insulting the president. Section 33 of Zimbabwe’s Criminal Codification and Reform Act levied a 100 dollar fine or a year of imprisonment for such an offense. The current political consensus does not support the president, as a result many individuals broke section 33 by badmouthing President Mugabe and received such punishments. At least 80 cases alleging these charges have been seen in the last year. However, amendments to section 33 are now in progress.

President Mugabe has been the head of Zimbabwe for 33 years. He will be 90 when he concludes this term. He was once greeted by cheers when first elected in 1980. At that time, he was the first black president in a country that had been formerly ruled by a small population of whites–a haunting vestige of its colonial history. But Zimbabwe’s love for Mugabe has turned sour, and his most recent election was met with apathy and exacerbated already existing despondency.

Mugabe’s reign has not seen the prosperity of the hope it once promised. During his rule, the country has suffered from extremely high levels of inflation, the implementation of his infamously poor land reforms that damaged the country’s tobacco industry, and many human rights issues. The land reform legislation, created to return the power to the black population, allowed for the government to seize land from the white population, without compensation, and redistribute it to the black population. Black riots and marches in celebrations of the fast-track resettlement program injured the white population physically and economically, causing a mass migration. The departure of the white population meant a decrease of wealth and resources for Zimbabwe. Furthermore, this expensive redistribution of land gave farms to individuals with little agrarian knowledge, resulting in a reduction in productivity and poor land management. This hyperinflation added salt to wound–as inflation was 1,000 percent just last year. The well-being of the economy is usually positively correlated to the reelection of the incumbent president. The only reason Mugabe was able to win the recent 2013 election was by pushing the limits of human rights, and rigging the votes.

With a distressing recent history, things are starting to turn around for Zimbabwe as a new democratic constitution is created. Two significant events are driving the policy changes; change of presidential term limits and support for freedom of speech from the judicial sector. The new constitution would limit the terms of the President to two to five years, and limit power through checks and balances system similar to United States. Furthermore, High Court Judge Malaba’s promotion of freedom of speech in opposition to the insult laws, “law[s] cannot be used to restrict the exercise of freedom of expression under the guise of protecting public order when what is protected is not public order,” spurred Zimbabwe’s change. Once again, we are reminded of Mugabe’s first election, as hope predicts a positive future.

[BBC] [Aljazeera] [BBC]

—

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Jesse B. Awalt via Wikipedia]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Changing Laws in Zimbabwe: Rise of a New Hope appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.

The U.N News Centre announced new members of the UN Security Council. Among the new members,  Chad, Lithuania, Nigeria, and Chile, to accept non-permanent seats, was suppose to be Saudi Arabia. The operative word is “was”, as Saudi Arabia turned down the seat, instead adopting a double standard.Released on October 17, the U.N. News Centre announced the new member, along with videos of the event. In an informal interview after the announcement, the Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia Mr. Abdallah Yahya A. Al-Mouallimi congratulated the other elected countries, and spoke about Saudi Arabia’s concerns and interests with its new position. More specifically, Saudi Arabia reiterated its support of the rebel forces in Syria, and also stressed the paramount importance of finding a solution to the Israel- Palestine conflict. He broadcasted, “we take this election very seriously as a responsibility, to be able to contribute to through this very important forum, to peace and security of the world.Our election today is reflection of a longstanding support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means”.

These same troubles, however, caused Saudi Arabia to shift its position. The following day, the country refused the seat. The Saudi Foreign Ministry stated that the United Nation’s inaction toward Syria’s government handle of rebel forces demonstrated the deep-rooted errors with the council, “allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN Security Council’s inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities.”

Given this position, Saudi Arabia was granted a platform to fix the problems it believed existed in the UN Security Council. Ironically, Saudi Arabia’s critique of UN Security’s inaction did not deter them from following suit. By rejecting the position, Saudi Arabia, too assumes inaction.

[un.org] [aljazeera]

—

Featured image courtesy of [United Nations Photo via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post Inaction is an Action: Saudi Arabia Declines UN Security Council Seat appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent article, Three-month ban on Skype, Viber, and Whatsapp in Sindh Proposed published by Pakistan Today, Provincial Information Minister Sharjeel Memon stated,“terrorists and criminal elements are using these networks to communicate after the targeted operation was launched.” These comments were a reflection on the media ban that took place in the Sindh province of Pakistan on Thursday, October 3rd. Over a year before this most recent ban, Youtube was also expelled from all of Pakistan after a musical group criticizing the Pakistani government made it big on the social media platform. Other forms of social media have also often been chastised for lending to unorthodox muslim ideas about reform and government separation. The domination of Islam, already prevalent, is now infringing even more into public policy and the government of the nation.

In comparison, the Facebook ban in China has not stopped the Chinese from using it and the Pakistani Youtube suppression has not fully restricted the Pakistanis; it is only more challenging to access these sites. These bans do not limit everyone in the nation, just a specific demographic. Obviously, those of high socioeconomic standing or those who possess web knowledge will be able to bypass the system. It is the general middle class populace that gets affected by these bans the most. The purpose of controlling the social media networks, the Pakistani government claims, is to limit terrorist communications. If the Youtube ban from last year still allows use, the ban on social media websites is certainly not going to restrict a group of people who have access to much higher leveled technological resources. In 2011, Osama Bin Laden was found (and killed) in close proximity to a Kabul military base, highlighting the corruption of Pakistan. The question about whether Pakistan was involved with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations compares to the question, “did O.J. murder his wife, Nicole?”. It is hard to believe that this sort of limitation will restrain the terrorist groups from communicating, if that is what the government actually wants. What, then, does the government want from this ban?

Moving our concentration a little west, Saudi Arabia is one of the most censored countries in the world. The news, although privatized, is still regulated by the government, as heads of the stations are appointed by the government. The content of the news distributed is also heavily regulated. A 2011 governmental decree forbade media from reporting anything that countered Sharia law or anything of “foreign interests and  that undermines national security,” Saudi Arabian King Abdullah stated. Is this what the future holds for Pakistan?

The role of social media has developed into something ineffable and so ingrained into culture. Larger than life, it led the on-going revolution in Egypt, connecting people with local and public information. What’s going on? What should we do? How do we do it? — these questions were asked and answered by the Egyptian locals, creating a large-scale community of people seeking change. The revolution reflected on the power social media holds. Realizing this, in a failed attempt to stop the riots, the Egyptian government blocked the social media sites and mobile phone networks, taking away full internet access. The result was only more anger from the public. Perhaps, Pakistan is trying to learn from Egypt’s mistake by blinding their people before they widen their eyes and realize the full potential of their tools.

As of now the social media prohibition in Sindh is suppose to last three months to limit terrorist communication. Recent history and personal speculation leads me to believe otherwise.

[pakistantoday] [France24]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post New Type of Warfare: Social Media vs. Government appeared first on Law Street.

When is a line more than just a connection between two points? A line, a border, can limit the encroachment of and define a culture, language, religion, and laws. It can also be blurred, changing constantly, like that of India and Pakistan, or Israel and Palestine. When playing jump-rope with those lines, what laws apply?

Making recent global headlines is the story of the White Widow, Samantha Lewthwaite — the British born and raised converted Muslim woman who’s now-dead husband was involved in London’s 7/7 jihad attacks. Although initially condemning her husband’s actions, she seems to have joined his cause. She forged a Somali passport under the name Natalie Webb, and crossed African borders, seamlessly entering Kenya. Now, she is a major suspect in a Nairobi mall bombing, and has been given a Red Notice by INTERPOL. The Red Notice means that the 190 member countries of INTERPOL, an international police organization, are participating in manhunt for her. For her search, other methods Kenya could have taken would have been to reach out to INTERPOL’s close alliance, the United Nation, work in solitude with Kenya’s own national security, or extend for help to independent Kenyan alliances rather than the large coalition, INTERPOL.

From one conservative extremist Muslim, to one liberal extremist, different people with radically different views, are found in similar situations— they are both being sought by authorities. Acclaimed author Salmaan Rushdie, as a result of his unapproved writings about Islam, had a fatwa placed upon him by the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, in 1989. A fatwa, unlike the a notice by INTERPOL, is less tied with the government and more with the religion. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is a religious order commanding the Muslim population worldwide to do an action. In the case of Salman Rushdie, the action was to kill the author.

A more domestic situation that deals with this issue is the anecdote of Edward Snowden. After receiving treason charges in America, Snowden was granted limited asylum in Russia, tarnishing the relationship between the two nations. A stemming problem is the extradition of Edward Snowden. By avoiding America, he was able to avoid his prosecution. Like America, Kenya anxiously awaits the return of the potential criminal, using the Red Notice to catalyze the extradition process.

All of these cases echo the same question about borders that was posed by the Dred Scott Case in 1857: Do the laws of a land no longer extend to you once you step over the line? Is it the responsibility of nations to carry out the jurisdiction of the native ruling county?

[cfr.org] [ Interpol.int]

—

Featured image courtesy of [hjl via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post The Thin Line appeared first on Law Street.