Whether it is a cure for cancer or simply another false hope, laetrile has caused great debate in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has banned laetrile from interstate commerce, effectively preventing cancer patients from obtaining the drug. While a majority of states have similar intrastate prohibitions on the use of laetrile, as of September, 1978, seventeen states allow its use subject to substantial regulation. The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Cancer Society (ACS) endorse prohibitions on laetrile’s use as valid public health measures. On the other hand, politically conservative groups and individual cancer patients, their families and doctors, support laetrile and advocate freedom of choice in making medical decisions. This lack of consensus among members of the medical and legal communities leaves the cancer patient in a state of medical and legal limbo. In July 1977, these issues were presented before the Senate Subcommittee onHealth and Scientific Research at a hearing to evaluate the FDA ban.
In an effort to determine whether anti-laetrile legislation is constitutional, this Note compares the cancer patient’s right to choose laetrile with the state’s interest in limiting that right. The first section traces the medical and legal history of laetrile in the United States. Next, the Note provides a constitutional framework for analyzing important individual rights and assessing when the government can infringe on these rights. The last section explores the right, if any, to choose laetrile and advocates regulated use by cancer patients who are terminally ill or have no dependents.
Explores the role of the state in shaping our network and therefore, the importance of privacy in matters of our personal networks.
April Shaw∞ Abstract The Supreme Court’s analysis of the fundamental right to abortion as articulated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey fails to take into account how race operates to restrict women of color’s ability to exercise their right to an
Defining pregnancy and abortion as medical issues does not concede one shred of the privacy or decision-making arguments supporting a right to abortion; it simply helps to explain, more accurately, exactly what is at stake in a woman's decision to
Voting rights advocates should explore section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act as a vehicle to combat voter intimidation.