• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Supreme Court Rules Drug Companies Exempt from Lawsuits

M

Morphling

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
1,733
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.
Click to expand...


.......

http://worldtruth.tv/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/
 
So now their drugs can kill or cause extensive harm to someone with impunity? Well, that's just fucking lovely... :|
 
Interesting.

People should become better informed about the garbage these doctors try to pump into their systems.
 
its a little difficult when the manufacturer is "hiding" potential adverse reaction information from the public in fear of being held accountable.

...kytnism...:|
 
This is bizarre.
Impunity from lawsuits even if they are dishonest?!
Somehow, the war on drugs includes giving unfair and immoral benefits to drug manufacturers. :?
 
I can't believe this is even true....How could they do this this?
 
The US Chamber of Commerce is a private organization(not a government agency as many people assume) that gives alot of money to get judges elected that are favorable to business interests. Check out the movie "Hot Coffee", it's about the McDonald's case, tort reform and thse judges.
 
Tenchi said:
So now their drugs can kill or cause extensive harm to someone with impunity? Well, that's just fucking lovely... :|
Click to expand...
hat would be outrageous if it were actually true.

the headline of the article (and, hence, the title of this thread) are hyperbolic nonsense designed to catch attention. the decision, and the issue are a little more subtle than "worldtruth.tv" would like you to think...

alasdair
 
Well. They are saying basically that if the FDA says a drug is safe, and that only brand name drugs can be sued no generics that are just following in the exact footsteps of the once patented brand name drugs, even if it is exact same drug once it hits generic status you are out of luck....ok it ALMOST made sense to me after reading it, but then as I started writing out the facta I was like wow, this is crazy!

*edit* ok...going to have to look up the actual factual ruling as above poster mentioned, not at all biased as this article seems to be! Then will report back with my rant!
 
alasdairm said:
That would be outrageous if it were actually true.
Click to expand...

Who is legally responsible for adverse reactions from a generic drug prescribed according to the label?

I'm not even sure I need to add so many clauses to that question. Every doctor I see lately makes me sign a waiver exempting him or her from liability (I think).
 
23536 said:
Who is legally responsible for adverse reactions from a generic drug prescribed according to the label?

I'm not even sure I need to add so many clauses to that question. Every doctor I see lately makes me sign a waiver exempting him or her from liability (I think).
Click to expand...
Would that waiver hold up in court? Isn't a patent started from when the study or in the investigational phase for research begins- . Whomever files the patent isn't relieved under this ruling. Still in all pretty shitty.
 
Correct..the patented drug manufacturer is not exempted from being sued. But after it is no longer in patent and starts to be made in generics by other companies, the law says that the generic version must contain the exact info on the drug info insert as was on the original patented drug and that nothing can be changes, regarding the drug (it must be made exactly the same way as far as active ingredients) and/or the insert/drug info/leaflet. So no extra warnings can be added even if other dangers are known about. This means that the generics cannot change anything (even if it were to benefit the patients safety). Therefore the generic producers are saying its not their fault, they are just doing what the law requires them to do so they shouldn't be sued if they are just following the original patented drug/info/warnings provided. The court says if the FDA approves it, then basically it is on them, not the drug company.

But the real bullshit is, almost everybody obtains the generic formulations once they are available. So if you were unlucky enough to have issues and you are taking a generic form then you are SOL. If you just happen to be taking the original brand name then you can hold them liable.

It makes a little bit of sense but the problem is, the patients are still the ones being screwed. This ruling is actually only protecting the drug companies and in no way, shape or form protecxting the patients! So I guess your only recourse is to request brand name meds only. But I honestly don't know if my medical insurance would even cover brand name meds if there is a generic available. I mean, how many of you actually get the original patent nrand of your meds once generics are available? I am curious to know.
 
So what if the generic company puts out a bad batch of pills? Contaminated or something. Surely you can't sue the brand name for the generics' fuck up.
 
severely etarded said:
So what if the generic company puts out a bad batch of pills? Contaminated or something. Surely you can't sue the brand name for the generics' fuck up.
Click to expand...

Well, see you can't sue the brand name manufacturer unless that is actually what you are using. That's the big problem, most people use generics. I checked and my insurance won't pay for a brand name if there is a generic available unless it is medically necessary (ie you are allergic to an inactive ingredient that is in all the generics but not the brand name).

So the short answer is no. Though I can see that they have a problem if the law says they can't change anything even if it is to the benefit of the patient (but come on, how many of them are going to voluntarily put information in there that will be detrimental to their sales, especially if the other versions of the drug aren't doing it) but now where does that leave the patient? Like you said if we can't sue them for some type of gross problem then the only people they have to answer to is a government agency, the FDA. And if you can't sue the FDA, where does that leave the patient?

In that article the injuries that woman sustained were horrific, including permanent blindness. And that is actually not an extremely rare thing that happens to people taking certain NSAIDs. Off the top of my head I can't remember his name but there was a pro football player who died from same thing in recent years. And it is a horrible, horrible thing to go through and death is very likely after a lot of suffering. I will find some info on it and come back and post it. I somewhat familar with the disorder but wouldn't want to guess at the numbers.
 
^ I'll give an example. There was a batch of contaminated name-brand tylenol in 2010. Surely any drug, generic or even brand name, can be contaminated. Does this mean if you get contaminated generic, you can't sue?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top