The Supreme Court Decision on Federal Prescribing Rules for Controlled Substances.

This Viewpoint explains how a recent Supreme Court decision clarifies rules for prescribing controlled substances so that patients are not denied appropriate care and physicians are not unjustly prosecuted.

Curing the disobedient patient: medication adherence programs as pharmaceutical marketing tools.

Pharmaceutical companies have long focused their marketing strategies on getting doctors to write more prescriptions. But they lose billions in potential sales when patients do not take their prescribed drugs. Getting patients to "adhere" to drug therapies that have unpleasant side effects and questionable efficacy requires more than mere ad campaigns urging patients to talk to their doctors. It requires changing patients' beliefs and attitudes about their medications through repeated contact from people patients trust. Since patients do not trust drug companies, these companies are delivering their marketing messages through nurses, pharmacists, and even other patients--leveraging patients' trust in these intermediaries to persuade them to consume more brand name drugs. Armed with the premise that better adherence improves patients' health, drug companies justify manipulating patients by reframing reasonable decisions to decline therapy as pathological, and promote brand loyalty in the guise of offering medical care.

Cognitive enhancements and the values of higher education.

Drugs developed to treat cognitive impairments are proving popular with healthy college students seeking to boost their focus and productivity. Concerned observers have called these practices a form of cheating akin to athletes' use of steroids, with some proposing testing students' urine to deter "academic doping." The ease with which critics analogize the academic enterprise to competitive sport, and the impulse to crack down on students using study drugs, reflect the same social influences and trends that spur demand for these interventions-our hyper-competitive culture, the commodification of education, and our attraction to technological quick-fixes. Rather than focusing on the technologies that are being put to troubling uses, we would be better served reforming the culture that makes these practices attractive.

Racist appearance standards and the enhancements that love them: Norman Daniels and skin-lightening cosmetics.

Darker skin correlates with reduced opportunities and negative health outcomes. Recent discoveries related to the genes associated with skin tone, and the historical use of cosmetics to conform to racist appearance standards, suggest effective skin-lightening products may soon become available. This article examines whether medical interventions of this sort should be permitted, subsidized, or restricted, using Norman Daniels's framework for determining what justice requires in terms of protecting health. I argue that Daniels's expansive view of the requirements of justice in meeting health needs offers some support for recognizing a societal obligation to provide this kind of 'enhancement,' in light of the strong connections between skin tone and health outcomes. On balance, however, Daniels's framework offers compelling reasons to reject insurance coverage for skin-lightening medical interventions, including the likely ineffectiveness of such technologies in mitigating racial health disparities, and the danger that covering skin-lightening enhancements would undermine public support for cooperative schemes that protect health. In fact, justice may require limiting access to these technologies because of their potential to exacerbate the negative effects of racism.