The parents of 19-month-old Ezekiel Stephen were found guilty of letting their child die after he contracted bacterial meningitis in 2012.

David Stephan, 32, and Collet Stephan, 36, who live in Lethbridge, Alberta in Canada, walked out of an emotional courtroom Tuesday after hearing their fate. They won’t, however, be held in custody, and will return to court in June for their sentencing hearing.

They were charged with “failing to provide the necessaries of life,” under Section 215 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

The courtroom was overtaken with emotions when the verdict was read. Collet began to sob, as did multiple people in the courtroom and on the jury bench.

The maximum sentence the Stephans could get for not providing these necessaries of life would be five years in prison, but according to some lawyers, that doesn’t seem like a likely scenario.

“It’s not like they were not feeding their child or they were purposely withholding medication that they knew would assist the child but didn’t,” Shannon Prithipaul, former president of the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association, said to CBC News.

The jury comprised of eight women and four men was told that the parents took Ezekiel to a naturopathic clinic when he was too stiff to sit up in his car seat and had to lay on a mattress instead.

This is what Crown wants Canadians to learn from trial of Ezekiel Stephan’s parents (he’d died of meningitis) pic.twitter.com/enHFgsu0wb

— Kate Adach (@KateMedia) April 27, 2016

“They definitely, definitely loved their son but as stated in our closing arguments, unfortunately sometimes love just isn’t enough,” Crown prosecutor Lisa Weich said to the Toronto Sun. “Parents still have to follow a standard of care as set by criminal law.”

The parents faced criticism following Ezekiel’s death because of their decision not to vaccinate him.

According to the CDC, “The most effective way to protect you and your child against certain types of bacterial meningitis is to complete the recommended vaccine schedule [sic].”

The CDC also said there are roughly 1.2 million cases of bacterial meningitis per year worldwide.

In addition, “Without treatment, the case-fatality rate can be as high as 70 percent, and one in five survivors of bacterial meningitis may be left with permanent sequelae including hearing loss, neurologic disability, or loss of a limb.”

The parents testified that they did not understand the severity of his condition and thought that he had the croup or the flu. The CDC also reported “[the parents] treated him for 2½ weeks with remedies that included hot peppers, garlic, onions and horseradish and a product from a naturopathic doctor aimed at boosting his immune system.”

The Stephans finally called 911 when Ezekiel had stopped breathing and he was taken to the local emergency room and later flown to Alberta Children’s Hospital in Calgary, where he was later pronounced brain dead and taken off of life support.

“I was in tears like everybody else,” said Eric Sveinson, brother-in-law, to the Toronto Sun. “I was angry, frustrated. We’re very disheartened and very disappointed and hope that the world can see that a beautiful family was unjustly charged today.”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anti-Vaccine Parents Found Guilty of Not Providing ‘Necessaries of Life’ appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama recently acknowledged that his failure to pass common sense gun control laws in the U.S. has been his greatest frustration in his presidency. In a Thursday interview with BBC, President Obama claimed that it was distressing not to have made progress on the issue, even in the face of repeated mass killings.

His comments came hours before another mass shooting took place in Lafayette, Louisiana Thursday night. John Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at the Lafayette multiplex Thursday night before he turned his gun on himself and took his own life, police said.

However Obama signaled that he would continue to work on gun laws during his remaining time in the White House. He stated: 

It is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.

Nationally, guns kill 33,000 Americans and injure 80,000 a year. The total cost of gun violence is $229 billion a year, almost as much as we spend on Medicaid. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center recently found that there’s a substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. But despite the high levels of gun violence, Congress has no plans to investigate a solution.

In regard to gun control laws in the United States, Louisiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. It does not require gun dealers to obtain a state license. The state also has no laws that restrict assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles.

One week after the shooting at Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, the House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against an amendment that would reverse a 19-year-old ban on funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research the causes of gun violence in public health. Their reasoning is that gun violence is not a disease, and therefore does not fall under the CDC’s research domain.

The CDC had been conducting research into gun violence as a “public health phenomenon” and began publishing studies that indicated a strong correlation between the presence of guns and firearm-related deaths. Prior this, the CDC’s budget was cut in 1996 by $2.6 million, the exact amount they had spent on researching gun facilities in 1995. As a result of that cut, many scientists stopped doing gun research, and the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically. Reuters has reported that government research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the NRA’s campaign in the 1990s.

Although Obama has claimed that he will work to address gun violence in the United States during his remaining time as president, it is unclear how he will go about endorsing these big changes without the support of Congress. That being said, last week’s events show that some sort of common sense change is clearly necessary.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Rallies Against Lack of Common Sense in American Gun Control Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Mankind’s greatest enemy is not war or hunger but infectious disease. Throughout history it has cost countless deaths, and even in the twenty-first century our defenses against it remain limited. Above all, it is the threat of outbreak that unsettles us so; it is not just suffering and death, but fear. Whether it’s the Black Plague, Cholera, Spanish Influenza, H1N1, or Ebola, disease is a dark cloud looming over our lives.

Most of the microscopic killers with which we contend have been transmitted to us through animals. In the early ages of settled agriculture, close contact with domesticated chickens, pigs, cows, and others exposed humans to pathogens to which their immune systems had no previous exposure and consequently minimal means by which to combat them. There are two primary behavioral patterns of diseases. Some ascribe to the category of “chronic.” In this case, as geographer and ornithologist Jared Diamond explains, “…the disease may take a very long time to kill its victim; the victim remains alive as a reservoir of microbes to infect other[s]…” The other category is “epidemic.” In this case, Diamond continues, there might be no cases for a while, followed by a large number in an affected area, and then none for a while more. Such behavior is a consequence of the intensity of the disease’s manifestation; it strikes with such force that it basically burns itself out because the potential hosts all either die or become immune.

“Epidemic” is a widely feared term. Rather than consider the fact that they can and have been occurring on very small scales throughout human history, many people associate epidemic with things like the Black Plague in Europe, Smallpox in the New World, or a global zombie apocalypse. Since people naturally fear most what they do not understand, insufficient knowledge of disease vectors and behavior results in widespread fear and panic.

Ebola is a relatively late arrival on the scene. Originally suspected to be yellow fever, it was discovered in 1976 near the Ebola River in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Samples extracted from an ill nun who had been working in the region came to doctors and scientists in an Antwerp, Belgium laboratory. They eventually discerned that the infection behaved differently from what would be expected of the original diagnosis. After sending samples to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, their conclusions were confirmed and a new disease had been discovered. Shortly thereafter, another outbreak occurred relatively far away in Sudan. While knowledge of the initial source and starting location of the disease is still vague, it was determined that it had spread via unsterilized syringes and contact with bodies during funerals. Therefore a lack of knowledge of the nature of the disease lent itself to its spread.

Ebola in large dropped off the radar screen until the recent epidemic began in West Africa. Going hand in hand with lack of knowledge of the disease are incomprehensive and underdeveloped means of addressing it. On a recent edition of Global Public Square, the insightful international news show hosted by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, international relations PhD Chelsea Clinton declared that the disease is spreading exponentially, necessitating exponential containment measures. This is very difficult to achieve, due to the poor technological and economic infrastructures of the region. As Dr. Paul Farmer — another guest on Zakaria’s show — expanded, the Liberian healthcare system is also very weak. Liberian Foreign Minister Augustine Ngafuan detailed how Liberians have deeply ingrained burial practices that involve close contact with bodies; this is an important aspect of cultural values in the region and not easily relinquished in the face of something that foreign experts, much less locals, barely understand.

A Liberian village, courtesy of jbdodane via Flickr.

Globalization and increased interconnectedness between individuals, societies, and locations has exacerbated the rate at which diseases spread. Many Americans cried out when infected aid workers were brought home to be treated. Appropriate measures were taken in this instance, with sanitary transportation vehicles bringing the patients to the Emory hospital in Georgia. Due to its affiliation with the CDC, this is one of the few facilities truly equipped to accommodate infectious diseases of this nature. Both those patients recovered, though they would likely have died if they were forced to remain in Africa. The situation was handled intelligently and effectively, without resounding negative consequences. Yet the outcry and fear demonstrates people’s lack of knowledge and tolerance of the unknown and perceived dangers. This was in fact the first occasion in which Ebola was present on American soil.

The situation changed with the death of Thomas Duncan. Having arrived from Liberia in late September, Duncan provided a new first by being the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. His illness was unknown during his transit, and so new fears arose as to the likelihood of Ebola crossing the ocean with traveler hosts. Now in a complete state of fear, Americans want more and more action taken in defense of the nation’s health, yet do not know what those measures ought to be because we do not know enough about the disease. Many airports have begun taking travelers’ temperatures. The CDC initially cited 101.4 degrees as the point at which one must be quarantined, but lowered it after some supposedly ill people were cleared. This demonstrates the uncertainty of the disease’s nature; in what ways does Ebola affect a person’s body temperature? At what point in their illness are they contagious? Is a body temperature an effective indicator of this? These questions have yet to be answered for the disease of whose existence we have known for less than 40 years.

Specialists clean up a Hazmat area, courtesy of sandcastlematt via Flickr.

The second set of problems that are causing fear are the alleged breaches of protocol that have enabled several other people to catch the disease in the United States. The Dallas hospital in which Duncan died was not equipped to handle this disease and consequently could not treat him effectively. Furthermore, the staff did not have the proper training insofar as interacting with Ebola, and this has been cited as the reason why nurse Nina Pham, who was treating him, became ill as well. A recent video surfaced wherein a patient is being transferred from one vehicle to another by four workers in “hazmat,” or hazardous material, uniforms. A fifth person, dubbed “clipboard man,” stands with them completely unprotected. Finally, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden has come under fire for making statements and then retracting them. Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Tom Marino has even called for him to step down. We have quickly forgotten, though, that in the early 1990s Frieden was instrumental in developing awareness and programs to combat a rising Tuberculosis epidemic in New York City. In addition to other stellar career highlights, Frieden is a highly capable leader experienced in engaging these concerns.

We are too wrapped up in fear of the unknown to do anything but demand immediate results. Ebola is a newcomer on the scene and will take some time to understand effectively. As we continue to discern our relationships with our surrounding environments, we do know that ebola is not nearly as contagious as other diseases. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids of infected patients. As we continue to learn how it works, and how our actions, societies, and cultures interact with it, we will become more effective at addressing it. In the meantime, we annually face airborne foes which are far more dangerous and contagious; do not forget to get your flu shot in the coming weeks.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ebola and America’s Fears appeared first on Law Street.

For the first time in the United States during the current outbreak, a patient was diagnosed with the Ebola virus–the Centers for Disease control confirmed the case on Tuesday. As if Thomas Duncan, the infected Liberian man who came to the United States, doesn’t have enough to worry about, he’s also facing legal trouble. The Liberian government will prosecute Duncan when he returns to Liberia for allegedly lying on an airport questionnaire, the Associated Press reported.

Duncan left Liberia on September 19th to visit his family and wasn’t showing any symptoms at the time. Days before, he helped take a 19-year-old infected pregnant woman to a hospital and helped bring her back home when she was turned away for lack of space, the New York Times reported. The woman, Marthalene Williams, died the next day. Williams’ parents said that Duncan helped carry her back from the taxi to her house. Her brother, who accompanied her, her father, and Duncan on the taxi ride home, also started showing symptoms of Ebola and died less than a week later.

When Duncan was at the airport on his way out of Liberia, he received a questionnaire given to anyone intending to depart Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone – the three West African countries countries most severely facing the Ebola epidemic – asking him about his recent contact history in the country. Duncan answered “no” when when asked whether he had been in contact with anyone who may have been infected.

Duncan passed the screening at the airport without showing any sign of symptoms and boarded his plane. The idea that Liberian officials would threaten to prosecute him might suggest double standards, since people are still able to move between countries in West Africa. But Liberia may have chosen to do this to make an example out of Duncan. It’s likely that Liberia wants to set a precedent that its screenings are serious business and wants countries to where Liberians travel to be reassured about that, Cornell University Law professor Jens Ohlin told the Atlantic.

The sudden decision to prosecute an infected person might also be an attempt not to upset U.S. officials, though Ohlin doesn’t seem to think so. This hasn’t happened in other major countries, so it is tough to say whether Liberia is singling out the United States.

Duncan is arguably very lucky that he happened to be in America when he started to show symptoms of Ebola. The average death rate has been up to 90 percent in previous outbreaks, according to the World Health Organization. But in August, two American aid workers who were working in West Africa were cured of the disease after being treated in Atlanta.

Currently being treated in a Dallas hospital, Duncan started showing symptoms on Sept. 24 and went in for treatment two days later. His family members in Dallas have also been quarantined in their apartment. While the situation is dire in West Africa, CDC Director guaranteed that it wouldn’t be a problem in the United States. “The United States has a strong health care system and public health professionals who will make sure this case does not threaten our communities,” he said in a press release on Tuesday.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured image courtesy of [Phil Moyer via Flickr]

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Liberia to Prosecute Ebola-Infected Traveler appeared first on Law Street.

Birth control has been a source of political controversy since its first days on the market. In recent times, the debate over reproductive health care has traveled to the highest level of judiciary power in the country.

In the June 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court favored a corporation’s religious freedom over a woman’s right to affordable reproductive health coverage. Although the ruling did not completely strike down coverage set forth in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did set up the possibility for some employers to deny coverage. The IUD, or intrauterine device, is one of the contraceptive methods that no longer has guaranteed coverage. What are the policies surrounding birth control in America, and how truly effective is the IUD?

Pre-Hobby Lobby Policy

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that contraception is a necessary preventive health service for women. The ACA requires coverage without cost-sharing for women for all FDA-approved contraceptives. This benefits all women who want to use an IUD because of the high upfront costs without insurance.  All FDA-approved birth control methods must be covered by the plans, which includes: IUDs, the pill, the patch, the ring, the shot, diaphragms, sterilization procedures, and cervical caps.

Hobby Lobby Ruling

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from government regulations that would require them to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties consolidated their cases to challenge the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is limited to closely held corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While some supporters of the majority’s ruling claim the decision won’t affect many women, that is simply not true. More than 90 percent of all American businesses are made up my closely held firms, and they employ approximately 52 percent of the workforce.

The companies argued that just like places of worship and non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, their religious beliefs should exempt them from covering certain emergency contraceptives. This includes IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. Hobby Lobby objected to the morning-after pills and IUDs as they believed they cause abortions. The reasoning is that these forms of contraceptives prevent conception and fertilized egg implantation in the uterus, which to them is equivalent to aborting a life. Director of Contraceptive Development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Diana L. Blithe, has stated that there is no scientific evidence that these contraceptives work beyond fertilization. Birth control pills will continue to be covered, as they are not in opposition to the employer’s beliefs. The ACA originally allowed for non-profit religious organizations to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives and have outside insurance companies cover the women, and Justice Alito suggested that for-profit corporations adopt this method as well.

While women were denied basic reproductive health care by this ruling, the male-dominated majority ruled that  would continue to be covered. This hypocrisy has been noted by the public and Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg in her blistering dissent.

What is the IUD?

The IUD is a small, polyethylene “T-shaped” device that is inserted by a health care provider into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy. In the United States there are two types of IUDs available: hormonal (Mirena and Skyla), which released progestin, and copper (ParaGard). Mirena is effective for five years and Skyla is effective for three years; both may give the woman lighter periods. ParaGard is effective for 12 years and does not alter periods. The main way both types of IUDs work is by manipulating the way sperm moves so they are unable to join with an egg.

What are the benefits of an IUD?

The IUD and the birth control implant are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available. By not requiring user intervention, the risk of pregnancy is less than one percent. If inserted up to five days after unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can also serve as emergency contraception.

Hormonal methods offer supplementary health benefits in addition to contraceptive use. Similar to a birth control pill, an IUD can treat menstrual pain, menstrual bleeding, and acne.

IUDs help women avoid pregnancy coercion — pressuring one into becoming pregnant — and pregnancy due to a sexual partner’s refusal to use contraception. The device is effective, long lasting, and it’s nearly impossible for a partner to detect one.

Many other forms of birth control are advertised for how effective they are in preventing pregnancy. This is true, if they are used properly. A good example for this is the male condom. It is a common belief that they are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, however the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18 percent of women experience an unintended pregnancy while using this method. The discrepancy in information lies within the mighty if. IUDs are so efficient since they remove human error and are long-lasting. From the same CDC report, it was found that copper IUDs have a significantly lower 0.8 percentage.

What are the disadvantages of an IUD?

IUDs, called the Dalkon Shield, debuted in the United States in the 1950s. However, they were later taken off the market because of complications found in early versions of the device. The previous design led to infections and unwanted pregnancies due to it’s complicated method of correct insertion. It was also not widely known by doctors that it had to be removed when a woman became pregnant in order to avoid infection. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility was linked to the Dalkon Shield.Alexandra Sifferlin of Time reported, “According to various reports, upwards of 15 women who became pregnant with a Dalkon IUD inside them died of infections after they miscarried.”

Some other disadvantages include:

• IUDs do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (the male condom provides the best protection from most diseases).
• If a woman is uninsured, an IUD costs between $500 and $1500, including tests, exams, insertion, removal, and the IUD itself. The upfront costs may be a barrier for many women.

Are women using them now?

American women have the lowest rate of IUD se of any developed country and more than half have never heard of them. Laura MacIsaac, Director of Family Planning at Mount Sinai, stated, “IUD use in most of Western Europe, it’s about 20 percent, some countries 30 percent…in America, it’s about five percent.” While these numbers are low compared to other countries, since 2008 Planned Parenthood reports a 75 percent increase in IUD use among patients. In 2009, 8.5 percent of women using contraceptives relied on long-acting reversible contraception such as the IUD. This is a dramatic increase from 2.4 percent in 2002 and 5.5 percent in 2007.

Women between the ages of 25 and 29 who are married, women with no religious affiliation, and women covered by Medicaid use IUDs most frequently. Teenagers are less likely to use the IUD; only three percent of 3.2 million teenage women who use contraceptives chose this method.

Conclusion

IUDs have moved past their sullied past and become one of the most effective methods of birth control on the market. With their long-lasting effectiveness, lack of personal upkeep, and low pregnancy rate, IUDs are a favorable contraceptive option.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006-2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995

SCOTUS: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Additional

Planned Parenthood: IUD as a Form of Birth Control

Guttmacher: Changes in use of Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods in the U.S., 2007-2009

Guttmacher: IUD Fact Sheet

National Women’s Health Network: Not Your Mother’s IUD: Benefits and Risks of Modern IUDs

Time: Why is the Most Effective Form of Birth Control – the IUD – also the one no one is Using?

The New York Times: Religious Groups Equate Some Contraceptives With Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)

Washington Post: A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth

USA Today: Hobby Lobby Case: What Birth Control is Affected?

Huffington Post: Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The IUD: Beyond the Hobby Lobby Case appeared first on Law Street.

A new drug called Sovaldi, developed by Gilead Sciences Inc., is now available on the market that cures between 80-90% of users from Hepatitis C Virus (HVC). This is a ground-breaking development in medicine, as approximately 3.2 million Americans currently suffer from Chronic HVC according to the Center for Disease Control. This new drug is administered as a twelve week treatment and costs $84,000 which is considerably lower than traditional forms of treatment at $300,000. But here is the problem: according to University researcher Andrew Hill, Sovaldi only costs $150 to $250 per treatment. How can Gilead charge such an unreasonable price for a life saving drug?

Bringing A Drug to the Market

Before we draw any conclusions about the reasonability of charging $84,000 for Sovaldi, we must understand the process of how drug manufacturers bring a new product to the market. Our government attempts to guarantee protection for consumers from unsafe products through regulatory oversight, which means that not any product can simply be sold in stores. A new product must complete a twelve step process of human and animal phase-testing, facility inspection, drug labeling, application review, and review meetings.  This process can easily cost a billion dollars, meaning that the initial investment for drug development is steep one.

This high-cost initial investment creates a problem, namely, it can discourage innovation. In order to cover the start-up costs in production phase, a company needs to charge an inflated initial price  to make up for the original high-cost investment. The problem is that another company could easily replicate the drug and make a knock-off product to sell at a much lower price, as they don’t need to worry about making up initial investments. This hiccup, of stifled innovation, has been dealt with by government intervention and protection. In order to incentivize medicinal innovation, the government provides extended patent protection, preventing companies from being undercut by sales replicate drugs at a cheaper price. Such patents can give companies an effective monopoly for quite some time.

The Ethical Concern

Although this form of patent protection ensures continued innovation, there is some concern regarding possible abuse of these safeguards. When we revisit the question regarding the reasonability of Gilead charging $84,000 for the treatment, it is understandable that they must charge an initially high price. However, what happens when these costs have been covered? Mike LaBossiere reports that “when asked if Gilead would reduce the cost once it recovered its money, the vice president [Gregg Alton] of the company said, ‘that’s very unlikely that we would do that. I appreciate the thought.” Alton defends this position by claiming that, “those who are bold and go out and innovate like this and take the risk — there needs to be more of a reward on that. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for people to make that investment.”

Alton’s claim seems reasonable, yet Gilead’s opposition to lowering the price of Solvadi, after covering investment costs,  raises serious concerns regarding public welfare. It appears that a company like Gilead might be exploiting this fact when they develop the “fair price” at which to sell the drug.

The Solution of State-Capitalism

Government patent protection of new medical products should be coupled with temporary partial government ownership of the company as a stockholder. Essentially, for a certain period of time, drug companies would function as a public sector undertaking. This would have two benefits. First, the drug company still functions as a profit based competitive initiative keeping the reward system to spark risky business ventures like developing a new drug. Second, having the government as a large shareholder would help combat extreme price inflation that prevents accessible medicine for the severely and terminally-ill.

Some may be hesitant about the idea of state capitalism, but we shouldn’t be too hasty to throw it out as a possible solution. In fact, government owned businesses are some of the most successful ones in the world. The Economist reports,

State capitalism can also claim some of the world’s most powerful companies. [Such as] China Mobile is a mobile-phone goliath with 600m customers. Saudi Basic Industries Corporation is one of the world’s most profitable chemical companies. Russia’s Sberbank is Europe’s third-largest bank by market capitalisation. Dubai Ports is the world’s third-largest ports operator. The airline Emirates is growing at 20% a year.

If it is the case that government owned businesses have the ability to stimulate innovation, prove successful, and protect the public from exploitation, we may want to consider them as a possibility in cases like drug and medicine development.

 [TPM] [FDA] [NPR] [The Economist]

Bo Donoghue

Bo Donoghue is a student at The George Washington University. Contact Bo at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Need a Cure: It Will Only Cost an Arm and a Leg appeared first on Law Street.