Introduction
A crime is an act done by an individual against the laws and regulations of a country. Crimes are treated equally globally, but people get different punishments as per the specific country’s constitution (Metsch et al., 2015). However, individual acts are noncriminal in particular countries and a crime in others. For instance, smoking of marijuana in the Caribbean countries is constitutional, whereby in other countries, such as the United States, it is considered a crime. Thus, people need to understand the exact place and state they are in before engaging in individual acts. In the Case Study, Patrick Charles Bishop faces manufacturing homemade and untested drugs for treating cancer. Bishop makes the drugs in his house and sells them to ‘alternative-medicine doctors’ throughout the U.S., Mexico, and other undisclosed destinations. As presented in the Case Study, there are multiple crimes that Charles Bishop can be charged against. Furthermore, there are different possible defenses that Bishop can make. Therefore, this paper focuses on presenting Bishop’s crimes, the elements of each crime, and identifies the possible viable defenses available for the defendant.
Crime Identification
Fraud
Notably, the first crime that Patrick Charles Bishop can be charged with is that of Fraud. Denotatively, Fraud is deliberate to act or not act with the intent of obtaining unauthorized benefits, either for the institution or for oneself, either through truth suppression, false suggestions, or using deception (Chen & Asch, 2017). A fraudster makes people believe and equally rely upon their misleading information. Several elements make fraudulent crime:
A Representation of Fact and Falsity
A representation of fact is equal to ‘copying related content.’ According to Chen and Asch (2017), representation of truth is a statement that resembles a matter of fact during negotiations, whereby one party intends to induce the other party to enter into a contract. Following the case study, there are several incidences that Charles Bishop deploys the representation of fact. For instance, Bishop lies to the cancer treatment centers and other-related clinics in the U.S. and Mexico that the adulterated drugs are safe and tested to treat the cancer disease. The drugs are in misbranded containers, a clear indication of misrepresentation. The Case Study also presents a scenario where Bishop lies to the manufacturer that he would use the compound primarily for research purposes. The manufacturer subscribes to Charles’s idea and receives the $600,000 fee in exchange for the compounds. The defendant uses fraudulent means to lure the two parties to act in favor of his motives. Thus, Bishop qualifies the element of representation of fact, hence allowing the charges of Fraud.
Materiality
Materiality encompasses tangible or observable evidence offered before a court of law to disapprove or approve a fact in issue. Chen and Asch (2017) opine that the materiality element includes items that the court can practically see and make a fair ruling, and just for both the defendant and the prosecutor. In the Case study, the adulterated cancer drugs are a great form of materiality that the plaintiff can use against the respondent. The manufacturer’s agreement that Bishop purchased the compounds to use for research is another show of materiality. The manufacturer agrees that Bishop purchased the compounds he has used to make the adulterated drugs at the cost of $600,000. Here, this amount’s transaction is extensive evidence presented before the court of law, hence denouncing Bishop guilty of materiality. Connectedly, the materiality element qualifies the case to involve Fraud.
The Injured Party’s Consequent and Proximate Injury
The injured party in the Case study is the “alternative medicine doctors” both in Mexico and in the U.S. As Chen and Asch (2017) allude, the injured party is the individual that suffers a loss due to the forbearance or act taken upon while relying on the unprecedented misrepresentation. As mentioned above, Patrick lured the “alternative medicine men” that the drugs were tested and certified for use in cancer treatment. The doctors put trust in Bishop’s sentiments, hence deciding to buy the pills. Upon discovering the adulterated cancer treatment drugs and subsequent presentation of Charles to court, it means that the remaining stock could not be sold to the relevant cancer clients, hence leading to losses. Arguably, these unforeseen losses act as an injury to the “alternative medicine doctors.” Therefore, the proximate injuries element that the “alternative medicine doctors” receive is a clear exemplification of Fraud.
Felony
Felony is another crime that Patrick can be charged with within the court. Felony is a criminal offense in the U.S. and even other judicial systems resulting in the imprisonment of one year or longer. Ogrosky and Shuren (2017) mention that felony involves crimes that embrace violence and dangerous or harmful to society. Felony is treated as a form of recklessness whereby one considers less the lives of others in society to get personal gains. There are several elements under felony crime:
Omission
An omission is the first element of the felony crime in the U.S. Ogrosky and Shuren (2017) define omission as an act of intentionally leaving out or excluding specific critical steps, hence failing to fulfill a legal or moral obligation. There are necessary and mandatory fulfillments that an individual or company must adhere to and attain before branding their drugs and presenting them for market use. In the U.S., all the drug manufacturing persons or companies must present their medications to the federal regulators, such as the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) for the final lab test, trials, and certification (Ogrosky & Shuren, 2017). All medicine manufacturing companies must adhere to these rules to ensure the safety of the drugs. As presented in the Case study, there is a clear indication of omission in the sense that Charles avoids taking his medicine for testing by the federal regulators. The respondent decides to directly take medicine to the consumer, omitting the government drug regulatory agencies’ critical step of testing. Here, Charles’s actions to bypass the federal government tests and trials qualify the crime to have a felony ordeal.
Deceit
Deceit is the second element of a felony. According to Leung (2019), deceit develops when an individual or institution misrepresents ideas or products, aiming at defrauding the other party, causing a loss to the defrauded party. Bishop’s actions in the Case study exemplify the aspect of deceit. Bishop lies to the “alternative medicine doctors” that the drugs are fit and have been tested by the relevant authorities, hence proving to be perfect and appropriate for cancer treatment. The doctors subscribe to Bishop’s idea and purchase the drugs, which eventually turns out to be a loss. Bishop knowingly lies to the “alternative medicine doctors” that the government certifies the pills by rebranding in other viable companies’ containers. Interpretatively, the defendant lying to the medicine buyers that the medicines are verifiable is an element of deceit in the felony crime.
Punishable by Law
Punishable by law element signifies the different acts that offenders can engage in and receive punishment automatically. Leung (2019) introduces the Revised Penal Code under Act No. 3815 of 1930, which mentions that harming people is punishable. As obtainable in the Case study, the actions of Bishop are harmful to society. Specifically, rebranding and adulterating drugs and distributing them pose a colossal danger to the health and lives of the consumers. Bishop’s drugs did not undergo the right approval procedure to be termed certified for use in the cancer treatment process. Arguably, the drug might have different toxicants that leave a retrogressive impact on an innocent patient’s body. Despite the defendant arguing that the drugs are useful for the treatment of cancer, they might be containing other components that are injurious to the health of the consumer. Charles put the lives of cancer patients in danger because they trusted in counterfeit drugs. The respondent’s acts qualify the punishable by law element, hence approving charges on the felony crime.
Second Degree Murder Intentions
Second-degree murder is the other crime that the respondent can be charged with due to his act. Caneppeles and Aebi (2019) define second-degree murder as an unpremeditated murder caused by the respondent’s recklessness towards human life. When a suspect is charged with second-degree murder, intentions are that their preferences have proven to put people’s lives in danger. Following the Case study, Patrick Charles Bishop engaged in selling adulterated medicine to the “alternative medicine doctors.” The plaintiff can present a legit argument to the court that the accused had intentions of deteriorating people’s health. The respondent is a researcher that understands the doctrines and procedures that need to be followed in making a drug legit for public usage. Instead, Bishop decided to lure the medicine-men that the medicines are legit and certified to treat the cancer disease. The negligence and ignorance that the respondent shows are a colossal clarification that the accused person tried to engage in second-degree murder that turned unsuccessful in the end. Holistically, second-degree murder intentions are a logical crime that Charles can be charged against in the court.
Defenses
No Consumer Complain
The first defense that the respondent can raise is that no consumer has complained regarding the malfunctioning of the drugs in the cancer treatment. Since the day Patrick Charles sold the drugs to the “alternative medicine doctors,” there is no day or none of the consumers have filed a complaint regarding the medicines. In this way, the respondent’s medication is working, and the government should applaud his effort to find the cure for cancer. This disease is not only severe in the United States but also globally. The complainant should be the consumers and not the government. Thus, without the consumer reporting any cases regarding the side effects of the medicine, the drug remains helpful. The case would be severe if any of the clients, who are cancer patients from both Mexico and the U.S., had complained. The federal prosecutors should have concrete evidence regarding the ineffectiveness of the homemade medicine by the respondent. Therefore, the court should acquit the defendant based on the fact that the prosecutors do not have evidence regarding the drug’s ineffectiveness.
The Accused is of Advanced Age, Needing Leniency
The court should always consider individuals that presented before the court and their respective ages. There is a specific age that is dangerous to convict a respondent over non-essential issues, where they might develop chronic health conditions that are dangerous to their health. In the case study, it is worth noting that the respondent is fifty-four years, hence the court needs to consider the penalty that they give him despite the magnitude of the wrongs that he did. Understandably, despite Patrick acting erroneously, contrary to the FDA dictations, whereby he should have followed the required procedures through medicines pass before they are presented to the market for usage, the fact remains that the drugs are valid and helpful. The accused is an older adult that requires epitome care and attention. The court should consider that the conditions in jail are unfavorable to the health of the accused. The court should also remember that the country is amidst the covid-19 pandemic, and the elderly are the most susceptible. Mr. Charles Bishop is one of the older people; hence he needs state protection about his health.
The Homemade Cancer Drugs Are Effective and Safe for Usage
The court needs to applaud Bishop’s innovativeness in the development of the cancer drug. The respondent is confident that the medicine manufactured works despite being homemade and not following the medicine manufacturing rules and regulations. Here, there are two options that the court and the government should embrace. One, the court should either recall all the drugs that have been supplied and destroy them. Two, the court should warn the public from using the drugs until a test regarding the drugs’ effectiveness has been conducted. Arguably, the respondent is a warm-hearted citizen who wants to see patient recovery from cancer. The accused wants people in the U.S. and the world to get well or recover to their normal health, hence continuing with their life. The client acted in good-will to help those that are suffering from cancer. Even though the client did not go through the whole process of making the medicine certified for human use, it cannot disqualify the idea that medicine treats cancer. Therefore, the case needs to be treated in a lenient manner to the accused and encourages innovation for different chronic diseases.
The Accused was Pushed to Help Cancer Patients During this Pandemic
Presently, much of the healthcare attention seems to target Covid-19 diseases. Here, other patients with chronic diseases such as cancer have been forgotten, considering that they receive little healthcare attention, unlike before the pandemic. On the same note, the cancer patients are going through a lot of suffering, considering that they are among the susceptible populations. A cancer patient’s chances of dying are very high when they contract the coronavirus. According to the Case study, the court views the Bishop’s actions from a different perspective. He was looking for alternatives to the pain that the cancer patients are going through currently. Arguably, the defendant understood that following the right procedures for the authorization and certification of putting the drugs in the consumer market would have taken a lot of time. More people who are cancer patients would have died, hence a significant loss to the different families throughout the U.S. and Mexico. Therefore, there is a need for the court to consider the accused’s motive was reducing the physical suffering of the cancer patients amidst the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Components of the Drugs Were Known to the Recipients
The recipients of the drugs who are the “alternative medicine doctors” were aware of the mixed components to make this cancer treatment drug by Patrick Bishop. Regardless of the accused using a fake identity on the drug packages, they knew the drugs’ different components. The respondent used no harmful substance apart from the elements that he purchased from the Chinese manufacturer. Also, the substances used for making the drug are legit in the healthcare system; hence one cannot doubt their effectiveness or the exact that they can cause on the patient. By the federal medicine department acknowledging the compounds, there is no reason for the plaintiff to claim that the drug is detrimental to the patient’s health. Also, no healthcare practitioner complained regarding dangerous components that have been used in the manufacturing and application of the drugs. Both the doctors and the cancer patients are aware of the drug’s components and their subsequent effectiveness. Connectedly, the court should comprehend that the details of the drugs were known to the recipients.
There is no Drug Disclaimer
The accused did not get out of any disclaimer on the packet of the medicines. There was no disclaimer that if anyone bought the drugs, it was on their peril and not the manufacturer. According to the Case study, the respondent puts no disclaimer regarding the drugs’ ownership and use. Here, it is open for any consumer to bring forth a complaint, in any case, that the drug ceases to function appropriately. The lack of a disclaimer in the pills is an indication that the respondent is ready to address the different issues raised by the drug users. Also, the accused person understands and trusts his drugs and is effective for treating cancer. The defendant has not hidden from the public since the different health centers and “alternative medicine doctors” that he was selling the drugs to both in the U.S. and Mexico know him. Therefore, the ideology that there is no drug disclaimer means that the accused person is genuine and has no ill intentions of impacting cancer patients’ health, retrogressively.
Conclusion
In conclusion, presenting Bishop’s crimes, the elements of each crime, and identify the possible viable defenses available for the defendant are likely following the Case study. The potential crimes are those related to fraud, felony, and second-degree murder. In contrast, the defenses include the idea that there have been no formal complaints from the consumer, the accused of advanced age; hence the court needs to be lenient in the judgment, and the homemade drugs are effective for cancer treatment. The other defenses are that the accused got motivated following the current negligence of cancer patients and all effort on Covid-19 containment. The components of the drugs are known to the recipients, and that there is no drug disclaimer. Above all, there is a need for researchers and institutions to follow recommended procedures in presenting a drug for use by patients to avoid wrangles with government machineries.
References
Caneppele, S., & Aebi, M. F. (2019). Crime drop or police recording flop? On the relationship between the decrease of offline crime and the increase of online and hybrid crimes. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 13(1), 66-79.
Chen, J. H., & Asch, S. M. (2017). Machine learning and prediction in medicine—beyond the peak of inflated expectations. The New England journal of medicine, 376(26), 2507.
CBSNEWS.COM. (2020). Man Charged with Selling Homemade Cancer Drug Suppositories. CBS News. Web.
Leung, G. K. (2019). Criminalizing medical research fraud: Towards an appropriate legal framework and policy response. Medical Law International, 19(1), 3-31.
Metsch, L., Philbin, M. M., Parish, C., Shiu, K., Frimpong, J. A., & Giang, L. M. (2015). HIV testing, care, and treatment among women who use drugs from a global perspective: Progress and challenges. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999), 69(02), S162.
Ogrosky, K., & Shuren, A. W. (2017). The most challenging compliance arena in health care: Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing. Journal of Health Care Compliance, 19, 5-59.