By David Tobias

It is common practice for doctors to prescribe drugs for uses that have not been approved by the FDA, a phenomenon known as “off-label” use. In fact, at least 20% of all drug prescriptions are off-label, and some scholars quote figures as high as 60%. In the fields of oncology and psychiatry, off-label drug use is even higher. This practice has significant pros and cons. Many healthcare providers and patients consider off-label use necessary in order to get drugs to patients who need them. However, off-label drug use correlates with significant increases in adverse drug effects for patients, especially when the use is not supported by significant scientific research, and it has caused significant harm to the public. In order to stop these negative effects without stifling off-label drug use’s benefits, this article proposes a two-part solution that will encourage physicians to prescribe and administer off-label drugs in accordance with society's expectations of safety.

By Lauren Maloney

The Moore and Myriad decisions poorly interpret the statutory language in the Patent Act, making it easier for human beings to become fungible objects bought and sold in the marketplace. Although that statute requires that inventions and discoveries be new, both decisions fail to recognize this. The courts ignore the uniqueness of each person’s body parts, leading to two practices: the coercion/corruption marketplace dichotomy and the loss of “personhood” within a person’s property. The cases reduce people to mere objects, commodifying human beings and objectifying them in the marketplace.

By Ellen Rackley

At noon on January 8 2015, Massachusetts inaugurated its first Republican governor in eight years, Charlie Baker, who succeeded Democrat Deval Patrick. Before Governor Baker could take office, however, the previous legislative session had to come to an end. Accordingly, January 6, 2015, marked the last day of the 2nd Annual Session of the 188th General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Because the General Court has the power to pass bills until the end of a legislative session, it is unlikely that an outgoing governor will have time to fully evaluate all the bills submitted in the short time between the end of the Legislative Session and the swearing-in of the incoming governor. Given the limitations on the governor’s power to prevent legislation from becoming law, may an outgoing governor pocket veto legislation submitted by a recessed legislature before the ten days have expired and the governor’s term has ended? This article argues that both practical and legal precedent indicate that he may.

By Nick Eliades

The Technological Singularity, or Singularity for short, is a hypothetical point in the future when a super-intelligence, whether artificial or not, redefines civilization by achieving exponential gains in its own intelligence, and with its superior intelligence, significantly outperforms humans of even the highest intellect. The Singularity is not inevitable, but could occur through several means. The most popular version of the Singularity is by way of artificial intelligence; but nootropics, human-machine hybrids, genetic engineering, and other seemingly sci-fi alternatives could also potentially trigger the Singularity.

The key issue is whether and how to extend personhood to something that has super-human intelligence, regardless of whether its source is human or not. Though others have made broad attempts at defining a new legal test for personhood, have demonstrated that most tests would be problematic, or have drawn upon a specific area of law as analogy, the approach here is quite different. This article instead attempts to catalogue key U.S. Supreme Court decisions to indicate how previous characterizations of personhood may inform future decisions with regard to the Singularity.

By Yangchen Tenzin Nangpa

This article will evaluate current federal and state policies dealing with the noncitizen population and, based on these evaluations, will lay out five rationales as to why states should hold Padilla retroactive. Together, these policy and fairness considerations show that states have a legitimate interest in recognizing Padilla’s retroactivity and in affording noncitizens the opportunity to challenge constitutionally deficient pre-Padilla guilty pleas.

By Jordan Payne

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., an all male Supreme Court majority held that closely held corporations controlled by religious families could not be required to pay for contraceptive coverage. While purporting to recognize that all individuals have the constitutional right to contraceptives, the Hobby Lobby Court effectively eliminated the right for female employees in religious corporations to access contraceptive coverage through employer-covered health plans. This analysis will consider how Hobby Lobby, in practice, violates federal anti-discrimination law under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (“PDA”). As an avenue around Hobby Lobby’s seemingly dire consequences, activists ought to bring a Title VII challenge to employer insurance policies that deny women the right to contraceptive coverage.