Secondary Titles (2)
- Glaubinger Chair for Undergraduate Leadership
- Chairperson Undergraduate Program
Joshua E. Perry (J.D., M.T.S.) is Chair of the Undergraduate Program, Glaubinger Chair for Undergraduate Leadership, and Associate Professor of Business Law & Ethics. His most recent scholarship explores legal, ethical and public policy issues in the life science, medical device, and healthcare industries, as well as in the business of medicine. He teaches courses on business ethics, critical thinking, and the legal environment of business to both undergraduates and MBA students. A 2002 graduate of the joint law-divinity program at Vanderbilt University, Professor Perry was previously on faculty at the Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University Medical Center where he taught medical ethics in the medical school and legal ethics/professional responsibility in the law school, while serving as a clinical ethicist in both the adult and children's hospitals. In 2009 he was recruited to the Department of Business Law and Ethics at Kelley, where he also previously served as Research Coordinator in the Center for the Business of Life Sciences. The author of over thirty published articles, essays, and book chapters, Perry’s award-winning scholarship has appeared in a variety of law reviews and peer-reviewed journals across the fields of business, medicine, law, and ethics. His expertise has been featured in the New York Times, USA Today, Wired, and Huffington Post, and in 2015 he was invited to serve as a Section Editor for the Journal of Business Ethics. He is also a recipient of numerous teaching awards for excellence and innovation in the classroom. In 2013 Perry was recognized by the Academy of Legal Studies in Business with the “Distinguished Junior Faculty Award,” celebrating outstanding early career achievement. In 2015 Perry's commitment to the classroom was recognized by his election into Indiana University's Faculty Colloquium on Excellence in Teaching (FACET).
Industry Expertise (4)
Areas of Expertise (7)
Recipient, Distinguished Junior Faculty Award - Academy of Legal Studies in Business (professional)
Hoeber Memorial Award for Excellence in Research - American Business Law Journal (professional)
The Hoeber award, given in memory of prominent business law professor Ralph C. Hoeber, is awarded by the editors of the American Business Law Journal to recognize excellent research.
Best Article Award for 2012 - International Association for Business and Society (professional)
ABLJ author Josh Perry has won the International Association for Business and Society's 2014 Best Paper Award, which recognizes the best paper by a member of the IABS published in 2012, for his article “Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Health Care Reform at the Intersection of Law and Ethics.”
Hoeber Memorial Award - American Business Law Journal
Hoeber Memorial Award recognizes the most outstanding article in Volume 49 of the American Business Law Journal.
Virginia Maurer Ethics Paper Award (professional)
The Virginia Maurer Ethics Paper Award recognizes the best ethics paper. It is awarded by the Academy of Legal Studies in Business.
Vanderbilt University Law School: J.D., Law 2002
Vanderbilt University Divinity School: M.T.S., Theology 2002
Lipscomb University: B.A., American Studies 1997
Research Grants (3)
Indiana University Office of the Vice Provost for Research Grant
University of Indiana
Recipient, IU Office of the Vice Provost for Research Grant, funding a research seminar entitled “Turning Pro: The University, the Workplace, and the Changing Role of Professionalism”
Cal Turner Program for Moral Leadership in the Professions at Vanderbilt University Faculty Research Grant
Recipient, Cal Turner Program for Moral Leadership in the Professions at Vanderbilt University Faculty Research Grant, funding research on how healthcare lawyers resolve ethical dilemmas (2005 - 2008)
Vanderbilt University Center for Ethics Research Grant
Recipient, Vanderbilt University Center for Ethics Research Grant, funding research on the common ethical dilemmas encountered by lawyers and physicians (2007 - 2008)
Over the last decade, online crowdfunding has become a mainstream source of capital formation for a range of artistic and entrepreneurial endeavors. Low-barrier websites such as Kickstarter and IndieGoGo that fund production of a movie or recording of an album, in addition to charity conduits such as Kiva that facilitate the dissemination of microloans in the developing world, are trusted fundraising mechanisms that offer alternatives to traditional financing through banks and venture capitalists. Moreover, these models predicated on the solicitation of relatively modest amounts of money create a more egalitarian investment environment wherein donors can join the effort—and often receive some token reward— in exchange for a sense of personal engagement and affiliation with the underlying project being financed. Crowdvesting is a kind of crowdfunding designed to raise capital a la traditional stock offerings and the sale of ` securities. Unlike charitable donations, such investment opportunities trigger analysis under existing securities laws and regulations, some of which date to post-Great Depression concerns, i.e., the 1933 and 1934 Securities Acts and others flowing from the more recent Great Recession milieu, i.e, the JOBS Act of 2012 and related state analogues. Given the decreasing availability of federal research funding, biomedical researchers have begun to explore the potential for crowdfunding models of financing. This paper explores the ethical and legal issues triggered by the specific case of the physician-researcher, active both in the clinic and at the bench, who seeks to raise funding via crowdfunding channels. Should physician-researchers solicit research funding from their patients? What are the implications for the patient’s sense of trust and the patient’s relationship with the physician? And what about those donating who are not patients or related stakeholders, but rather interested and sympathetic donors who wish to help the cause? This paper maps the landscape of these questions and concerns, and lays the groundwork for future empirical and theoretical explorations, as well as policy and practice guidelines.
The view of ethical astuteness introduced and outlined in this paper aims to add value for a firm in the healthcare business – with a particular application to a for-profit organization providing dialysis services – by addressing two chief concerns: A.) The competing priorities between the patient’s interest in the healthcare encounter and the investor’s interest in generating a return on profits; and B.) The vulnerabilities of a financially-conflicted, for-profit healthcare provider to an allegation of medical malpractice.
Alasdair MacIntyre described the late modern West as driven by two moral values: efficiency and effectiveness. Regardless of whether you accept MacIntyre's overarching story, it seems clear that efficiency and effectiveness have achieved a zenith in institutional health care structures, such that these two aspects of care become the final arbiters of what counts as “good” care. At the very least, they are dominant in many clinical contexts and act as the interpretative lens for the judgments of successful health care managers. The drive of efficiency can also be seen in “lean” management methods (originally imported from the automotive manufacturing industry) increasingly deployed in the intensive care unit. This drive gives us pause.
The high stress of the ICU is exacerbated by the enormous complexity of technological interventions designed to maintain physiological functioning as the body heals, as well as the ever-present concerns related to cost, effectiveness, and efficiency. The ICU, therefore, provides an illustrative view of the challenges facing clinicians, as well as resource managers, in terms of delivering care. In short, the goal of technocratic efficiency often ends up at odds with humane purposes.
To better understand these contemporary health care dynamics, we conducted a limited series of focus group discussions and interviews with residents experienced in the challenges of delivering care in the ICU environment. In what follows, we highlight some narrative observations drawn from these focus groups. We found a recurrent and disconcerting refrain among our informants that has not been adequately described or addressed in the literature: technocratic management techniques have crept into and bifurcated clinical care strategies in the ICU. Specifically, we highlight the influence of concerns around efficiency and effectiveness and the ways in which these foci have contributed to a bifurcation in care in the ICU along two trajectories: either compassionate care or curative care.
Financial relationships and business transactions between physicians and the health care industry are common. These relationships take a variety of forms, including payments to physicians in exchange for consulting services, reimbursement of physician travel expenses when attending medical device and pharmaceutical educational conferences, physician ownership in life science company stocks, and the provision of free drug samples.
The ultimate goal of most advertising is to increase product sales. However, much advertising does not exert an immediate impact on consumer purchase behavior, but rather elicits intermediate consumer responses, such as increased brand awareness, interest, and information seeking.
This article critically questions the commercialization of hospice care and the ethical concerns associated with the industry's movement toward "market-driven medicine" at the end of life. For example, the article examines issues raised by an influx of for-profit hospice providers whose business model appears at its core to have an ethical conflict of interest between shareholders doing well and terminal patients dying well. Yet, empirical data analyzing the experience of patients across the hospice industry are limited, and general claims that end-of-life patient care is inferior among for-profit providers or even that their business practices are somehow unseemly when compared to nonprofit providers cannot be substantiated. In fact, non-profit providers are not immune to potentially conflicting concerns regarding financial viability (i.e., "no margin, no mission"). Given the limitations of existing empirical data and contrasting ideological commitments of for-profit versus non-profit providers, the questions raised by this article highlight important areas for reflection and further study. Policymakers and regulators are cautioned to keep ethical concerns in the fore as an increasingly commercialized hospice industry continues to emerge as a dominant component of the U.S. health care system. Both practitioners and researchers are encouraged to expand their efforts to better understand how business practices and commercial interests may compromise the death process of the patient and patient's family--a process premised upon a philosophy and ethical tradition that earlier generations of hospice providers and proponents established as a trusted, end-of-life alternative.