Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
In the latest round of legal decisions on the enforcement of international privacy laws between the EU and the U.S., Peter Swire, professor of Law and Ethics at the Georgia Tech Scheller College of Business, and associate director for Policy of the Georgia Tech Institute for Information Security and Privacy looks at how the EU may examine foreign intelligence surveillance in his article “Foreign Intelligence and Other Issues in the Initial Opinion in Schrems II” in Lawfare. The Schrems II case is the subject of the recent opinion from Advocate General (AG) Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In the case, Austrian lawyer Max Schrems challenged Facebook’s ability to transfer personal data from the EU to the United States using the standard contractual clauses, which exist where a company such as Facebook follows EU-level privacy standards when private data is transferred outside of Europe. Schrems’s specific claim is that he cannot access any files that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have collected about him and lacks legal redress for any violation of his rights under EU law. Swire writes that the case examines the transfer of an individual’s personal data from the European Union to the United States using the standard contractual clauses and the Privacy Shield, which was negotiated in 2016 by the U.S. and the EU for privacy data transfers to the United States specifically. Facebook’s headquarters are in Ireland, and the Irish High Court ruled in favor of Schrems and certified 11 broad questions to the CJEU. The AG opinion published this week concerns this appeal in Schrems II from the Irish High Court. If Schrems wins this appeal, then many flows of personal data from the EU to the U.S. may become illegal. Swire’s expertise in U.S. privacy laws is extensive. He is a sought after privacy expert and he has been highlighted in Bloomberg Law, Le Monde, LawFare and numerous scholarly publications. He has appointments by courtesy with the College of Computing and School of Public Policy and is Senior Counsel with Alston & Bird, LLP. If you are a reporter covering this topic and would like to speak with Professor Swire – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview or email media@scheller.gatech.edu.
Who should pay for the opioid epidemic? – In latest lawsuit, drug stores say it's the doctors
It’s lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit as blame, accountability and, eventually, restitution is sought as the opioid epidemic's damage is sorted out across courtrooms in America. The latest turn in the road is that major drug store chains are now suing doctors in the bell-weather area of northeast Ohio with a claim that it is those with the pen and prescription pad that need to own the responsibility for the rampant opioid abuse across the country. “CVS, Walgreen Co., Walmart, Rite Aid and other major pharmacy chains said opioid prescribers bear responsibility for the prescription narcotic crisis, but unlike the drugstores, have not been sued by Cuyahoga and Summit counties. In legal papers filed Monday, they contended that doctors and other prescribers should have to pay some of the penalty if the drugstore chains are found liable at trial.” January 07 - Washington Post With billions at stake and the fates of big-pharma, drug stores and distributors, and now doctors now in the hands of the justice system – what’s next? How long will these lawsuits be tied up in court? Will the victims and families of the hundreds of thousands of Americans impacted by the opioid epidemic ever see compensation? And is this a matter of finding one sector or segment accountable or in these instances, will it be shared? There are a lot of questions to be asked, and that’s where the experts from the University of Connecticut can help. Alexandra Lahav is an expert in complex litigation, class actions, and mass torts, and is the author of a prize-winning book, In Praise of Litigation. Alexandra is available to speak with media regarding the mass of opioid epidemic lawsuits – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
In this Era of Fake News and Alternate FactsExperts are King
There’s nothing new about fake news. Satirical media outlets such as The Onion have been around for a decade giving us a good laugh. But somewhere in the past 12 months, something changed for the worse. The wool that was being pulled over people’s eyes wasn’t so obvious anymore. Satire and bad humour were replaced by visceral accusations, conspiracies, and smear campaigns. How did we get to this point, and what can be done to stem the tide? A sure sign that we had a problem was a development that was apparent in the last presidential election. New voices were on the national scene branding our traditional media outlets as biased, and elitist. We saw the phrase “mainstream media” become a bigger part of the conversation. Now we have to contend with “fake news.” Unlike traditional journalism fake news outlets deliberately spew wrong information. In an effort to get a story out, mistakes will happen. But in the world of fake news there is no retraction or correction of these mistakes — even when they are exposed as blatantly untrue. Further damage ensues when social media then acts as an enabler as fake news articles get amplified to millions of people, who are clicking away, feeding advertising revenues to these publishers. No matter what your political stripe or where you stood regarding the recent US election, fake news was rampant on both sides spreading false information, invoking anger, and deceiving the public. More recently, a fresher version of fake news has emerged as “Alternate Facts.” A term made famous by Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway as she defended the statements made by Press Secretary Sean Spicer who lectured and insisted that the crowd present for President Trump’s swearing-in was “the largest audience ever to It seems that the whole nature of the game has changed almost overnight. Even the White House press gallery isn’t immune to these developments. This week’s Saturday Night Live sketch brilliantly sums up the aversive relationship that we’re seeing develop between the media and the new administration. (Note: For the record, the photo at the bottom is NOT a C-SPAN broadcast. It’s a comedy sketch. It did not really happen. This is NOT Sean Spicer in the photo below — it’s an actor portrayal). Perhaps most ironic for me is how believable fake news can appear to be. A friend of mine, a former investigative journalist commented that “given the outright absurdity of the actual “real” news cycle,” it’s getting hard for people to sort fact from fiction.” Perhaps this says as much about society as it does about media. So Where Does All This Leave Us? Some say the solution is as simple as removing the bias from our news media. The problem is, I know quite a few (real) journalists and they are serious about reporting facts. They work in newsrooms and report the news, they tell stories, but gathering and checking facts are what define them. As they work to a set of professional standards and deliver real information. However, we’re witnessing a massive change in the way that ideas are shaped and communicated to the public. Sadly, the traditional avenues of information flow and the mutual respect that even democratic nation states have had with the media appears to be eroding. There is also a disturbing undercurrent of thought that traditional news organizations are biased, and every outlet is always serving a hidden agenda. Recent events have prompted the need for news organizations to brief their journalists on how to govern themselves in these very “interesting times.” John Daniszewski, Vice President for Standards for Associated Press in a recent blog post called for clarity regarding the definition of the so-called “alt-right.” “We should not limit ourselves to letting such groups define themselves, and instead should report their actions, associations, history and positions to reveal their actual beliefs and philosophy, as well as how others see them,” writes Daniszewski. Other news organizations are looking at recent events and taking the opportunity to internally brief their journalists. In a recent message to staff, Reuters Editor-in-Chief Steve Adler wrote about covering President Trump the Reuters way: “The first 12 days of the Trump presidency (yes, that’s all it’s been!) have been memorable for all — and especially challenging for us in the news business. It’s not every day that a U.S. president calls journalists “among the most dishonest human beings on earth” or that his chief strategist dubs the media “the opposition party.” It’s hardly surprising that the air is thick with questions and theories about how to cover the new Administration. So what is the Reuters answer? To oppose the administration? To appease it? To boycott its briefings? To use our platform to rally support for the media? All these ideas are out there, and they may be right for some news operations, but they don’t make sense for Reuters. We already know what to do because we do it every day, and we do it all over the world. To state the obvious, Reuters is a global news organization that reports independently and fairly in more than 100 countries, including many in which the media is unwelcome and frequently under attack. We don’t know yet how sharp the Trump administration’s attacks will be over time or to what extent those attacks will be accompanied by legal restrictions on our news-gathering. But we do know that we must follow the same rules that govern our work anywhere.” Adler goes on to provide a set of rules for the Reuters team that I think are very wise, especially given the current environment. Do’s: Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions. Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one. Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources. Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us. Keep the Thomson Reuters Trust Principles close at hand, remembering that “the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved.” Don’ts: Never be intimidated, but: Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us. We may care about the inside baseball but the public generally doesn’t and might not be on our side even if it did. Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too. Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example — and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere. Winning back the public trust — Why Experts Matter Perhaps a way to help reverse this trend is to ask more of our experts within our organizations, and get them to contribute more to these important conversations. It’s about getting our academics, physicians, professionals, and leaders in their respective fields to contribute more to help the media present a more balanced set of perspectives in ways that engage the public. In this new era, it appears that many experts are invisible to the media on a range of big issues such as climate change, economic data, security, crime and healthcare policy. Opinions — not always informed opinions — are taken as fact. People without qualifications are being asked to speak on topics that require years of study, research, and experience. This is why, now more than ever, we need to see a return of intelligence and knowledge to present true facts. Credible Experts Matter Credible sources are vital in helping ensure the proper degree of research has been done. Published work, peer-reviewed studies, as well as policy that has been developed and practised all play key roles in determining an actual expert. Proven credibility cuts through rhetoric. It promotes the delivery and flow of facts as opposed to feeding only one side of a debate. Being Approachable Matters We have to agree that the current sentiment that many have toward traditional institutions and their experts is that they are not providing enough practical information of benefit to the public. The term “ivory tower” comes up frequently to describe environments such as universities and think tanks. While we need these environments of intellectual pursuit they cannot be seen as disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. Transparency Matters Do you know where your information is actually coming from? The flow of money into the development of fake news and so-called “experts” who are pushing agendas is tremendous. We’ve seen it recently with the sugar industry — much like the tobacco industry who literally wrote the book on manipulating and re-wrapping expertise and research in the middle of the last century — setting ideas on nutrition back decades. The market is crying out for a more consistent way to discover and evaluate the credibility of experts. We need a quick and trusted way to review their education, background, publications as well as their affiliations. We need to be able to conduct a front-line background check before we give them the platform to share their perspectives on television, radio, or in print. We need to vet the expert before they reach an audience that relies on the information being communicated to form opinions and make critical decisions that affect their lives. Local News Matters Local media is shrinking. Newsrooms are currently being threatened by constant shifts in both consumption and business models. If we are to promote accurate information and win the war on actual facts, we must make it easier for local journalists to do their jobs. Mainstream media still carries a lot of weight, especially online and television where the nightly news reaches a massive audience. Though the ratings are large, the subject matter doesn’t always resonate with viewers at home. We need to do a much better job helping local media get better access to the experts in our organisations so they can localise issues and tell stories, and do it in ways that everyone can understand. For example, a story on national unemployment numbers has a different context in San Francisco than it does in Flint, Michigan. Climate change is impacting Miami a lot differently than it is in the Great Lake states. In the end, all news is local. Speed Matters News is increasingly a speed game. With social media, a 24-hour news cycle, and the race to be first, time is of the essence. But in this game, haste may not only make waste, the truth may be a casualty as well. Most recently Fox News reported on a violent shooting at a mosque in Quebec City, Canada. Six people were killed by a lone gunman. Fox News reported that the suspect was of Moroccan origin — that was false. The shooter was in fact of Canadian origin. It wasn’t until the Canadian Prime Minister’s office requested a retraction that Fox walked the story back…but it took almost two full days. In true Canadian fashion, Kate Purchase, Communications Director for Prime Minister Trudeau thanked Fox News. In the meantime, wrong information was shared across multiple platforms and seen by millions of people. This is when having your experts prepared, media-trained, and trusted internally to speak with media is key. In times of emergency and chaos, it may be the words, advice and perspective of a high-level expert that can calm a nervous public, or at the very least, clearly explain a situation and its outcomes with accuracy and trust. So Why Should This Matter to You? If you are focused on building your market visibility and brand reputation, making your organization’s experts more discoverable and responsive to media is as much a function of good public relations as it is a public service. In these days of fake news, alternate facts, and unclear agendas, an unbiased and objective point of view presented by a credible expert may be one of the few remaining pillars of integrity we have left. Experts bring credibility, reliability, and an elevated level of perspective and advice that the public can trust. It’s up to all of us to ensure our thought leaders rise above the fray and help rebuild the trust that is essential to building a civil society. How is your organization working with its experts to respond to these challenges? I’m particularly interested in speaking with communications and media relations professionals in higher education, healthcare and professional services as our team conducts more research in this area. Let us know what you think by sharing below. I read every comment.
During media training sessions, I share examples of easy ways to completely tick off a reporter — not as a tutorial — but as a cheeky way to say DO NOT do these things ever if you want to maintain any kind of healthy relationship with media. Below you will find the ones that bothered me when I worked as a journalist. Do any of these things, and you’re in for a world of fun. 1. Tell a reporter how to do their job – They love that. Criticize the subjective tone or focus of a story while you’re at it. Bonus points if you can do this while never mentioning that the story was technically 100% accurate. 2. Ask them why they didn’t cover your story – Reporters love justifying how they do their job and the decisions they’ve made — to PR people. If you ask with a little bit of attitude, all the better. They dig that. 3. Only be helpful when you want something from them – Reporters can’t tell when they have an artificial one-way relationship with a PR person. No need to invest a little time in getting to know them and THEIR needs a bit better. 4. Send them a media advisory right before an event – They will never guess that you don’t really want them there so you made it logistically impossible to get there on time without being able to say they weren’t invited. 5. Only communicate with them by email or text – Reporters love nothing more than a controlled message via email with no chance to ask a question. Sometimes (legal implications) you have no choice — but we’re talking about the other 99% of the time. An email is great for communicating tone, too. 6. Send out a media release with a contact who’s not available – It’s a great tactic. Send out a media release and put the person’s name at the bottom for media to contact. But, that person is not available. This screams “credible”. 7. Promise a scoop then hold a news conference – Nothing says “I love you” like a broken promise. And, chances are they communicated the promised scoop to their editor, too, so you now have double the fans in that newsroom. 8. Ban them from anything – If there’s one thing reporters truly love, it’s being punished for doing their jobs. So, ban them from news conferences or events. Lord knows they’d never tell anyone, especially on social media. 9. Tell them how lucky they are to get what they got – It certainly works with spouses — so why wouldn’t it work with reporters, right? 10. Make them go through access to Information – They understand that there is some information that will require access to information — but the true joy comes in having to go through the red tape to get something simple and easy. 11. Ask them if they’d ever come work for you in PR – Nothing says manipulation like false flattery and dangling a carrot. You better be serious. 12. Make them watch other people eat – What is more enjoyable than attending a Chamber luncheon or keynote address and watching people eat while you stand in the corner waiting for the speaker. No need for a media table at all. 13. Hold a news conference with inadequate audio/visual facilities – Today’s reporter has to listen to the speaker, ask questions, video, tweet, etc. all at the same time. Would an audio board and camera riser help? Sure. But, what’s one more thing for them to do at this point? 14. Call their boss to complain about them – This was one of my favourites — when the PR person would go over my head. I can assure you I didn’t hold a grudge and didn’t dig into your organization with a little more rigour. 15. Return their call at 4 p.m. – You’re busy so reporters completely understand if it took you 6 hours to get back to them just to say you can’t help. I’m sure the next time YOU want something, they’ll be equally as gracious. There are others. There are many others. Feel free to share the ones you know of and perhaps we’ll compile another list in a few months.
Locking down your data. Are lawmakers finally waking up to the importance of privacy?
Data collection and data control are becoming international issues. As the lucrative and important pieces of customer data collection become a priority for major tech and software companies – privacy and protection is now emerging as the key issue for international legislators. Just recently, Microsoft had to update several of its agreements with cloud customers and re-classify its role in Europe. Last month, as part of an enquiry that opened earlier this year, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) expressed 'serious concerns' over whether the relevant contractual terms were compliant with GDPR, and over Microsoft's role as a data processor or data controller for EU institutions. The report followed the publication of a series of papers by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, suggesting that Office 365 was breaching GDPR by collecting 'functional and diagnostics data', including email subject lines and text run through a spell-checker. Microsoft has now acknowledged its position as a data controller - which has a higher bar for ensuring user data - when it comes to the provision of enterprise services. "In the [Online Services Terms] OST update, we will clarify that Microsoft assumes the role of data controller when we process data for specified administrative and operational purposes incident to providing the cloud services covered by this contractual framework, such as Azure, Office 365, Dynamics and Intune," says Julie Brill, Microsoft's corporate vice president for global privacy and regulatory affairs and chief privacy officer. "This subset of data processing serves administrative or operational purposes such as account management; financial reporting; combating cyber attacks on any Microsoft product or service; and complying with our legal obligations." Forbes Magazine – November 18 Data collection and control are becoming big issues on a global scale as more and more governments are looking for consumer protection while companies are seeking the profit that comes from the information customers provide voluntarily and sometimes unwillingly . Are you a reporter covering technology, privacy and data collection and control? Did you know that there is value in the results of spell-checkers and document review tools? If you have questions or need an expert source for insight and perspective – let us help. Dr. Rachel Cummings is an expert in data privacy, algorithmic economics, optimization, statistics, and information theory. Dr. Cummings is available to speak with media regarding data privacy and other topics, simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
This month, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a shift in U.S. policy toward settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Pompeo announced that the Trump administration does not view the settlements as inconsistent international law, and rescinded a 1978 state department legal opinion that held that view. The move now leaves the issue of individual settlements up to Israeli courts. Assistant Professor Sandy Marshall has spent time as a volunteer instructor in a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank and returned to the region this past summer to advance his research into the experiences of Palestinian refugee children. A human geographer, he has conducted extensive research into the impact of conflict, division and displacement on children and youth in the Middle East. Asked for a brief comment on the shift in U.S. policy, here’s what Marshall had to say: “Coming on the heels of the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem and recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the change in policy on West Bank settlements is another nail in the coffin of a negotiated peace-settlement based on the two-state solution, represent U.S. rejection of broad international legal consensus . This move undermines any remaining legitimacy the U.S. has in the region as a peace-broker and threatens further destabilization of the region.” If you're interested in talking with Professor Marshall as you continue to cover this important topic, please reach out to Owen Covington, director of the Elon University News Bureau, at ocovington@elon.edu or (336) 278-7413. Professor Marshall is available for phone, email and broadcast interviews.
As we approach the first anniversary of the legalization of cannabis and prepare for the introduction of legal edibles, CAA South Central Ontario (CAA SCO) is releasing new data that suggests that the dangers of cannabis-impaired driving are misunderstood by many. It shows that approximately 1.2 million Ontario drivers have, at some point, driven high after consuming cannabis. Seventy-two per cent report waiting three hours or less to get behind the wheel, with 27 per cent feeling very or somewhat high when they did. “We know that driving under the influence of cannabis affects your ability to drive safely and increases your risk of getting into a crash,” said Teresa Di Felice, assistant vice-president of government and community relations at CAA SCO. “The research has shown us that young Canadians are more at risk of a vehicle crash even five hours after inhaling cannabis.” The research also shows that over half of Ontario drivers who use cannabis are “poly-users,” meaning they typically pair cannabis with another substance. Alcohol is by far the most common substance paired with cannabis. Cannabis-infused edibles are another option that may further complicate matters when it comes to drug-impaired driving. Twelve per cent of non-users indicated they were very or somewhat likely to try edible cannabis products after it becomes legal. “It is crucial to continue to explore and understand what impact the legalization of edibles may have on Ontario’s roads. If Ontarians choose to consume edibles, they should be aware of its delayed psychoactive effects and the impact on their ability to drive,” said Di Felice. CAA’s focus is to ensure that road safety, public education and enforcement remain at the forefront of the management of cannabis legalization. The statistically representative study, commissioned by CAA and conducted by Dig Insights in late June 2019, surveyed 1,510 Ontarian between the ages of 19 and 70 who have a valid driver’s license. ��
‘Bottom-line mentality’ can lead to loss of employee respect and loyalty, research shows Supervisors driven by profits could actually be hurting their coveted bottom lines by losing the respect of their employees, who counter by withholding performance, according to a new study led by Baylor University. The study, “The Influence of Supervisor Bottom-Line Mentality and Employee Bottom-Line Mentality on Leader-Member Exchange and Subsequent Employee Performance,” is published in the journal Human Relations. “Supervisors who focus only on profits to the exclusion of caring about other important outcomes, such as employee well-being or environmental or ethical concerns, turn out to be detrimental to employees,” said lead researcher Matthew Quade, Ph.D., assistant professor of management in Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business. “This results in relationships that are marked by distrust, dissatisfaction and lack of affection for the supervisor. And ultimately, that leads to employees who are less likely to complete tasks at a high level and less likely to go above and beyond the call of duty.” While other studies have examined the impact of bottom-line mentality (BLM) on employee behavior, Quade said this is the first to identify why employees respond with negative behaviors to supervisors they perceive to have BLM. The research team surveyed 866 people. Half of those surveyed were supervisors; the other half were their respective employees. Data was collected from those who work in a range of jobs and industries, including financial services, health care, sales, legal and education. Researchers measured supervisor BLM, employee BLM, task performance and leader-member exchange – the rating employees gave of their relationships with their supervisors. Employees rated their supervisors’ BLM by scoring on a scale statements like: “My supervisor treats the bottom line as more important than anything else” and “My supervisor cares more about profits than his/her employees’ well-being.” They rated leader-member exchange via statements such as “I like my supervisor very much as a person” and “My relationship with my supervisor is composed of comparable exchanges of giving and taking.” Supervisors rated their employees by scoring statements such as: “This employee meets or exceeds his/her productivity requirements,” “This employee searches for ways to be more productive” and “This employee demonstrates commitment to producing quality work.” Based on the responses and the data collected and analyzed, the researchers found: High-BLM supervisors create low-quality relationships with their employees. In turn, employees perceive low-quality leader-member exchange relationships. Thus, employees reciprocate by withholding performance. When supervisor BLM is high and employee BLM is low, the damaging effects are strengthened. When both supervisor and employee BLM are high, the negative performance is still evident. The last finding on that list was particularly significant, Quade said, because it contradicts a common belief that when two parties (in this case, supervisors and employees) think alike and have similar values, there will be a positive outcome. Not so much in the case of BLM, the study shows. “When supervisor and employee BLM is similarly high, our research demonstrates the negative effect on performance is only buffered, not mitigated – indicating no degree of supervisor BLM seems to be particularly beneficial,” the researchers wrote. “It seems even if employees maintain a BLM, they would prefer for their managers to focus on interpersonal aspects of the job that foster healthier social exchange relationships with their employees in addition to the bottom line.” The profit-performance relationship can spark a conundrum for companies, Quade said, because organizations want to be profitable, and performance is an important indicator of an organization’s health and vitality. If leaders believe a negative dynamic regarding BLM exists in their organization, the researchers suggest a few practical steps: Be cautious of a BLM approach or emphasizing bottom-line outcomes that could neglect other organizational concerns, such as employee well-being and ethical standards. Managers should be aware of the message they pass along to employees (and the possible performance repercussions) when they tout bottom-line profits as the most important consideration. Organizations that need to emphasize bottom-line outcomes should consider pairing the BLM management style with other management approaches known to produce positive results, such as practicing ethical leadership. “Supervisors undoubtedly face heavy scrutiny for the performance levels of their employees, and as such they may tend to emphasize the need for employees to pursue bottom-line outcomes at the exclusion of other competing priorities, such as ethical practices, personal development or building social connections in the workplace,” the researchers wrote. “However, in doing so they may have to suffer the consequence of reduced employee respect, loyalty and even liking.” ABOUT THE STUDY “The Influence of Supervisor Bottom-Line Mentality and Employee Bottom-Line Mentality on Leader-Member Exchange and Subsequent Employee Performance” is published in the journal Human Relations. Authors are Matthew Quade, Ph.D., assistant professor of management in Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business; Benjamin McLarty, Ph.D., assistant professor of management, Mississippi State University; and Julena Bonner, Ph.D., assistant professor, Utah State University. ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 17,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions. ABOUT HANKAMER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY At Baylor University’s Hankamer School of Business, integrity stands shoulder-to-shoulder with analytic and strategic strengths. The School’s top-ranked programs combine rigorous classroom learning, hands on experience in the real world, a solid foundation in Christian values and a global outlook. Making up approximately 25 percent of the University’s total enrollment, undergraduate students choose from 16 major areas of study. Graduate students choose from full-time, executive or online MBA or other specialized master’s programs, and Ph.D. programs in Information Systems, Entrepreneurship or Health Services Research. The Business School also has campuses located in Austin and Dallas, Texas. Visit www.baylor.edu/business and follow on Twitter at twitter.com/Baylor_Business.
Caring for Patients Who Are Prescribed Medical Marijuana
With more than $10 billion in legal sales of marijuana in the United States in 2018, there’s a need to educate healthcare practitioners about how to safely treat and manage patients who are prescribed medical marijuana. According to the Centers for Disease Control, cannabis-based products such as man-made cannabinoid-based medications may help prevent and ease nausea caused by chemotherapy. And for adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle spasms, short-term use of some man-made and cannabinoid-based medications may improve their symptoms. "Providing care for patients who use medical marijuana is a responsibility all healthcare providers share, and it is therefore imperative to encourage communication between all providers and the patient," says Evelyn Lengetti, PhD, RN, NPD-BC, Assistant Dean of the Continuing Education Program at Villanova’s M. Louise Fitzpatrick College of Nursing. To the best of her knowledge, Dr. Lengetti was the first in the Philadelphia area to host a day-long conference open to nurses, doctors, nutritionists, social workers, lawyers and pharmacists to educate them so they would have a working knowledge of what to expect when patients in their care started using medical marijuana. "Healthcare providers need to have some knowledge of medical marijuana when treating this population of patients," Dr. Lengetti says. "They need to know that cannabis is not FDA approved for any condition and that it is for investigational use only." Dr. Lengetti notes that it's beneficial for healthcare providers to know the different types of cannabis, possible side effects, nutritional challenges, and legal issues that may arise while providing care to patients who have been certified to use cannabis products.
Phasing out opioids – can it be done?
It’s a crisis that’s gripped America and has hit epidemic levels. More and more Americans are hooked on prescription painkillers, in fact, in 2017 close to 50,000 people in the United States died due to overdose from pills. And recently, it’s been suggested that perhaps phasing out and replacing these pills with less addictive and dangerous options is the only way to solve this issue? “FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, who plans to leave his job at the agency next week, wants companies to develop pain drugs that could eventually allow older opioids to be restricted or to come off the market entirely. “Given the public health crisis we face, and that American families are still being destroyed by the opioids epidemic, I believe that the FDA should treat opioids, as a class, differently from other drugs,” Gottlieb told a Senate appropriations subcommittee on Thursday.” - Denver Post It's a bold statement from a bureaucrat leaving his post – but is it possible? · Will big pharma comply? · Is it a matter of money over morality or are more rigids rules required? · Or is the only aspect left legal and government intervention? There are a lot of questions to be answered and that’s where an expert from Cedarville University help. Dr. Marc Sweeney is the Founding Dean of the School of Pharmacy at Cedarville University and is an expert in the fields of drug abuse, prescription drug abuse and Opioid addiction. Marc is available to speak with media regarding this growing issue. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
