MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Sun, 07 Jul 2013 22:36 CDTWashington. 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.
Karen Bartlett vs. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company
In 2004, Karen Bartlett was prescribed the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical, for her sore shoulder. Three weeks after taking the drug, Bartlett began suffering from a disease called, 'toxic epidermal necrolysis'. The condition is extremely painful and causes the victim's skin to peel off, exposing raw flesh in the same manner as a third degree burn victim.
I think if the drug maker intentionally hid the negative side effects which caused her condition, I have no idea how the drug company could not be held liable. That's the type of thing which people should be outraged about. A drug company intentionally hiding serious side effects to make a profit? There should be serious laws against that (though I'm not surprised there's not) and people should be going to jail.This ruling was quietly handed down by SCOTUS -- effecting all generic drug manufacturers. Here's the story:
Supreme Court rules drug companies exempt from lawsuits | Peace . Gold . Liberty
Personally, I think it's about time. The FDA is supposed to be protecting us against **** like this . . . and if a drug manufacturer is intentionally HIDING an adverse side effect? People should go to jail and huge fines exacted. But beyond that, I think people have to understand that warning labels mean, "Hey!!! If you take this drug?? All this **** could happen to you."
What do you think?
But the maker of a generic drug can not redesign it; federal law requires that it must be identical to the brand name version for it to be sold. Therefore, Justice Alito reasoned, the only other way for a generic drug company to reduce the risk would be to strengthen the warning for consumer. Pliva v. Mensing, though, held that generic drug companies may not change the warning label, but instead must include exactly the same warning label approved for the brand name drug.
I think if the drug maker intentionally hid the negative side effects which caused her condition, I have no idea how the drug company could not be held liable. That's the type of thing which people should be outraged about. A drug company intentionally hiding serious side effects to make a profit? There should be serious laws against that (though I'm not surprised there's not) and people should be going to jail.
It's one thing for the drugs to have side effects. It's one thing for there to be previously unknown side effects. But intentionally hiding side effects, especially on this serious of a scale, should be a crime.
I think they should be required to release their statistical trials and all side effects of the drug. When a consumer is looking to take a drug, he needs to be able to weigh the benefits vs the risks. For example, if I am having heart problems, and I look at a fictitious drug called 'Alpac', which says 1 in 100 people will be subject to necrosis, then I might consider still taking it because the benefits for my heart far outweigh the 1 in 100 risk.
However, if the risk were 1 in 10, I may think it might not be worth the risk. With rulings like this, the pharmaceutical companies have yet another layer of deceit they can throw over their products making it near impossible for the average consumer to make educated decisions.
This ruling was quietly handed down by SCOTUS -- effecting all generic drug manufacturers. Here's the story:
Supreme Court rules drug companies exempt from lawsuits | Peace . Gold . Liberty
Personally, I think it's about time. The FDA is supposed to be protecting us against **** like this . . . and if a drug manufacturer is intentionally HIDING an adverse side effect? People should go to jail and huge fines exacted. But beyond that, I think people have to understand that warning labels mean, "Hey!!! If you take this drug?? All this **** could happen to you."
What do you think?
While I feel for this young lady and the pain she's suffered, in addition to any other person who's suffered similarly, I have to agree with the Supreme Court in this case and say the court is simply following the law that exists and refreshingly was not attempting to rewrite the law from the bench. Based on the outcome of this case, members of Congress and/or the President's administration should be looking to create or amend relevant legislation to make sure that in the future such lawsuits can be heard and be successful. It may be a good idea to also allow the federal government, in this case its agency, the FDA, to be sued jointly for any negligence on their part.
The government will NEVER allow the FDA to be held civilly liable; nor should they, in my opinion. You and I are usually in agreement. In this particular instance, I disagree with you across the board. But what fun would it be if we always agreed??
Just to clarify, a 1 in 10 risk of necrosis drug would never make it CLOSE to market.
It was an example, as part of a point that obviously went over your head.
There's also no drug called "Alpac"(a).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?