If there is a right to life, is there a right to not choose life? Many jurisdictions have regulations that enable patients to choose life-prolonging, life-shortening, or life-ending (for example do not resuscitate directives or removal of artificial feeding tubes) medical treatments in certain end of life situations. However, very few jurisdictions enable their citizens the choice to end their lives. Several countries are currently debating whether or not to enable their citizens to end their lives with the assistance of the state, and New Zealand is the most advanced in this process with its End of Life Choice Bill. This howtoregulate article examines the regulations of those jurisdictions that have developed end of life regulations on the basis of its complexity and the level of autonomy and protection afforded to those considering to end their life. Continue reading Regulating End of Life Choices: autonomy versus protection of the vulnerable
Profit from sales of medicines is incentivizing pharma companies to further invest in research and innovation, which is undoubtedly in public interest. Profit is evidently linked to prices. Prices of patented medicines are exponentially rising around the world. As a result, there is an increase in public expenditure and diminution of access to medicines across all income groups of countries. Hence there is a conflict between two public interests: innovation on one hand and affordability on the other.
It is natural and basically good that interest groups inform regulators on facts, concerns, and alternative solutions. However, lobbying can also go over the top, torpedoing good governance. This article investigates what can be done to counter unfair or disproportionate lobbying. Continue reading Countering unfair lobbying
Establishing a legal basis for liability claims or modifying an existing one can deter economic operators or other natural or legal persons from unwished behaviours. To use this instrument, it is necessary to analyse the tort law regime of the respective jurisdiction and to complement or correct it so as to ensure that the unwished behaviour is covered. The following check-list of relevant issues might help regulators in this task. The check-list reflects various tort law traditions. This means, on the other hand, that some of the issues listed below are not relevant in all jurisdictions. Continue reading Liability as regulatory tool
Requesting data as justification for new legislation is useful, but has an important downside. Requesting justifying data can delay or render impossible the new legislation. It can also be extremely costly, bind too much manpower, increase the influence of lobby groups and reduce the choices of political decision-makers. In a view of this downside, it is preferable to establish a pragmatic case-by-case approach that takes account of the situation of the sector in the respective jurisdiction. Continue reading The downside of requiring justifying data