Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.
In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.
In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.
I thought the courts were the last hope for reproductive rights?
At what percentage of side effects should companies be held responsible? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? What if the patient doesn't follow the proper instructions? And what if that drug makes one million peoples lives better but kills one of them? Dead person's family sues and wins and the drug is taken off the market.
Drugs react differently with different people.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I don't know... What percentage of death of disfigurement caused by the company's deliberately hiding and covering up adverse consequences is acceptable to you?
The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels.
Oh, silly question... Any amount that allows the company to continue to make obscene profits while telling the user's "Tough luck...You're screwed."
Question for you SC... what is a reasonable amount of time for a drug company to be exempt from liability once a new drug is placed on the market and approved by the FDA... or should there be no statute of limitations on the affects of a man made drug?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
No, I don't believe that there should be because some drugs' side effects are only seen once taken chronically. All drugs should continue to be monitored throughout their history of use and any new side effects should be ethically reported and properly addressed. If a company's owners operate the business in a morally responsible manner and attempt to help those harmed by their products (and I don't mean by giving the victims a cushy lifestyle for the rest of their lives, each case will be different as to level of care based on what happens), then they should be exempt from further litigation. However, if they are trying to hide dangerous side effects, or only help those who threaten to go public, and they don't take the drug off the shelves, they're fair game for all out take-down.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Science Chic wrote: No, I don't believe that there should be because some drugs' side effects are only seen once taken chronically. All drugs should continue to be monitored throughout their history of use and any new side effects should be ethically reported and properly addressed. If a company's owners operate the business in a morally responsible manner and attempt to help those harmed by their products (and I don't mean by giving the victims a cushy lifestyle for the rest of their lives, each case will be different as to level of care based on what happens), then they should be exempt from further litigation. However, if they are trying to hide dangerous side effects, or only help those who threaten to go public, and they don't take the drug off the shelves, they're fair game for all out take-down.
Even if a side effect is "ethically reported", does that relieve a drug company from responsibility? I've gotten serious neuropathy in my feet from a chemo drug, and then went into cardiac arrest from a second drug... but those drugs also took out the cancer. Should I be able to sue for damages or should I just be f#@kin greatful that some drug company made a drug that cured my killer? How can we ever expect any company to make perfect drugs that don't have any present or future side effects and then be able to sue them? Then we bitch about drugs being so expensive.
And did you hear about fish oil causing prostate cancer? Who can I sue on that one?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
Science Chic wrote: No, I don't believe that there should be because some drugs' side effects are only seen once taken chronically. All drugs should continue to be monitored throughout their history of use and any new side effects should be ethically reported and properly addressed. If a company's owners operate the business in a morally responsible manner and attempt to help those harmed by their products (and I don't mean by giving the victims a cushy lifestyle for the rest of their lives, each case will be different as to level of care based on what happens), then they should be exempt from further litigation. However, if they are trying to hide dangerous side effects, or only help those who threaten to go public, and they don't take the drug off the shelves, they're fair game for all out take-down.
Even if a side effect is "ethically reported", does that relieve a drug company from responsibility? I've gotten serious neuropathy in my feet from a chemo drug, and then went into cardiac arrest from a second drug... but those drugs also took out the cancer. Should I be able to sue for damages or should I just be f#@kin greatful that some drug company made a drug that cured my killer? How can we ever expect any company to make perfect drugs that don't have any present or future side effects and then be able to sue them? Then we bitch about drugs being so expensive.
And did you hear about fish oil causing prostate cancer? Who can I sue on that one?
Long John Silvers (and sue them for a working wage while you're at it)!!!
Rick wrote: Even if a side effect is "ethically reported", does that relieve a drug company from responsibility? I've gotten serious neuropathy in my feet from a chemo drug, and then went into cardiac arrest from a second drug... but those drugs also took out the cancer. Should I be able to sue for damages or should I just be f#@kin greatful that some drug company made a drug that cured my killer? How can we ever expect any company to make perfect drugs that don't have any present or future side effects and then be able to sue them? Then we bitch about drugs being so expensive.
And did you hear about fish oil causing prostate cancer? Who can I sue on that one?
No, even if a side effect is ethically reported it does not relieve a pharmaceutical company from responsibility unless that is a side effect that they already knew about and fully informed you of so you could decide for yourself to take the risk with informed consent. This process is messy, and will be different for each and every case because no two drugs, side effects, or patients reactions are exactly similar.
My personal preference, which probably has nothing to do with law and actual liability, is that there is good intent on both parties' parts. That the patient isn't trying to cash in on a mistake that a drug company is honestly trying to do right by, and that a drug company is doing what it reasonably can to help victims without going broke in the process and preventing future good for other people. Probably too idealistic, I'm sure.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
This is exactly what happens when the federal government exceeds is constitutionally delegated powers and starts regulating things in the name of doing it for public safety. Because the federal government must approve each and every drug prior to it being introduced into the marketplace, in the name of public safety of course, what ends up happening is that the developers and manufacturers of those same drugs are shielded from liability for their products because they submitted to the federal regulations. The existence of the FDA and its regulations on drugs is the problem here, not the Supreme Court ruling which properly explained why the drug manufacturers were not liable. The FDA assumed the liability of the manufacturer when it required the manufacturer to comply with its regulations and testing prior to marketing and selling their product and then told the manufacturer that they could market and sell the product.
Prescription drugs are not the only instance of this. The oil companies have their liability capped at a certain level because they complied with all pertinent federal regulations as well. Financial institutions are similarly protected, as are automobile manufacturers, and so too are many food producers. It is only when it can be shown that the company failed to comply with federal regulations that they open themselves to any liability for their products or their actions. This is the price the people pay for asking their federal government to act as their nanny and protect them.
