Supreme Court: Rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits - Polidicks

[quote] July 7, 2013. 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. Drug companies failed to warn patients that toxic epidermal necrolysis was a side effect. But the Supreme Court ruled they're still not liable for damages. 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.[/quote] [url]http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/[/url] Why can't I, hold all these freedoms?

So, how's that government working out for you, America? Too incompetent to do anything beneficial, but they sure are quick on stuff like this.

So, what i gather from this, the Supreme Court just allowed big pharmaceutical companies the ability to shit all over the consumer, putting out dangerous medicine that we can do nothing about. That's just golden.

Late by 2 days sir. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1288573[/url] [editline]14th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Reds;41463682]So, how's that government working out for you, America? Too incompetent to do anything beneficial, but they sure are quick on stuff like this.[/QUOTE] It isn't working out well. Canada is looking like a mighty fine place to live right now.

[QUOTE=KeitaroCoS;41463695]Late by 2 days sir. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1288573[/url] [editline]14th July 2013[/editline] It isn't working out well. Canada is looking like a mighty fine place to live right now.[/QUOTE] Shoot, I scower this subform all the time and didn't see this posted. Edit: Yea, every day that goes by; more reasons are given to me to defect. God damn It sucks because I love my home, but these 'human-beings' in power are ripping it apart.

[QUOTE=KeitaroCoS;41463695] It isn't working out well. Canada is looking like a mighty fine place to live right now.[/QUOTE] I don't know, that Harper guy seems to be rapidly trying to fuck everyone over from everything I've read.

I cannot believe how people over there will get in a tissy over some gangbanger thug getting shot but will not give a single fuck about being bent over and reamed in the arse by big pharma and big brother government.

This literally has nothing to do with your "freedom" I can side a bit with the supreme court on this. A drug company obviously cannot know [I]all[/I] side effects of a product before it hits markets -- FDA allows this -- The full effects of a drug are not known for YEARS down the road after its been introduced into the mainstream. [quote]fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death[/quote] Fraud and Mislabeling are the two that should be in this. It should never be ok for anyone - or anything - to defraud, or mislabel their product to consumers. The court went on to say that due to conflicting state and federal laws, drug companies can only be within federal law to be ok to sell. Also: [quote]the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;41463722]I cannot believe how people over there will get in a tissy over some gangbanger thug getting shot but will not give a single fuck about being bent over and reamed in the arse by big pharma and big brother government.[/QUOTE] The media tends to decide whether or not there'll be a massive moral outrage over things. Hell, Zimmerman wasn't even going to go to court until the shitstorm.

Wow, [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+drug+lawsuits&oq=supreme+court+drug+lawsuits]all the conspiracy sites are taking this story and running with it.[/url] In actuality, the Supreme Court simply ruled that you [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-court-generics-idUSBRE95N0RC20130624]cannot sue drug companies under state laws, only federal laws. [/url]

i blame zimmerman

It's difficult for judges to see the medical companies through the giant clouds of money that follow them everywhere. In fact, it's hard for just about anyone in politics to do their jobs when there's so much currency flapping around the room and being a nuisance.

[quote]7-Eleven raids prove US Slavery alive and well[/quote] Seems like a legitimate source, OP.

[QUOTE=Hackintosh;41464103]Seems like a legitimate source, OP.[/QUOTE] Hrm. Deja vu.

Luckily for me canada is only a short roadtrip away if shit gets really stupid, I heard Nova Scotia is nice

[QUOTE=Reds;41463707]I don't know, that Harper guy seems to be rapidly trying to fuck everyone over from everything I've read.[/QUOTE] harper sucks but the shit the conservatives pull is no where near this bad

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;41463772]Wow, [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=supreme+court+drug+lawsuits&oq=supreme+court+drug+lawsuits]all the conspiracy sites are taking this story and running with it.[/url] In actuality, the Supreme Court simply ruled that you [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/24/us-usa-court-generics-idUSBRE95N0RC20130624]cannot sue drug companies under state laws, only federal laws. [/url][/QUOTE] As the Zimmerman trial shows, all it takes is the ability to hear what you want to hear in order to get angry.

[QUOTE=Reds;41463707]I don't know, that Harper guy seems to be rapidly trying to fuck everyone over from everything I've read.[/QUOTE] He's doing his best to fuck us over, that's for sure. Related: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbZjGGWk528[/media]

This happened almost a month ago. This has nothing to do with drug companies being outside of the law, the decision specifically speaks on the conflict between state and federal laws that otherwise conflicted. Because the Court found that the company was right in that it could not comply with both laws, but complied with federal law (the supreme law), then it could not be held responsible under the state law. [url]http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165662[/url]

Another 5-4 Supreme Court decision that fucks the little guy and favors corporations, what a surprise. [editline]15th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];41466819']This happened almost a month ago. This has nothing to do with drug companies being outside of the law, the decision specifically speaks on the conflict between state and federal laws that otherwise conflicted. Because the Court found that the company was right in that it could not comply with both laws, but complied with federal law (the supreme law), then it could not be held responsible under the state law. [URL]http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=165662[/URL][/QUOTE] The drug company had the option of simply not selling the drug in that state, or willingly paying the medical expenses of people injured by side effects. Instead, the Supreme Court decided that a very technical inconsistency between state and federal law was justification for the company to walk away and not pay a cent to someone whose [I]skin rotted off[/I] because of their drug's side effects. This ruling is bullshit, just like every other 5-4 Republican majority ruling we've had in the last ten years, going all the way back to Bush v Gore. If there was a god, Scalia would have died in a car wreck by now.

Huh. I cannot share this article on Facebook for some reason. It won't let me post it. :raise:

Oh boy, I can just small the snake oil sales men who are going to abuse this.

[QUOTE=Reds;41463707]I don't know, that Harper guy seems to be rapidly trying to fuck everyone over from everything I've read.[/QUOTE] He'll be gone soon enough, we hope

Not this shit source [I]again.[/I] [quote=Sgt Doom;41423823]This is the decision the article refers to. [url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-142_8njq.pdf[/url] It is nothing to do with the conspiracy bollocks the "source" in the OP claims, it is specifically a conflict of state and federal laws that was ultimately resolved by the supremacy clause. "In the instant case, it was impossible for Mutual to comply with both its state-law duty to strengthen the warnings on sulindac’s label and its federal-law duty not to alter sulindac’s label. Accordingly, the state law is pre-empted." "This case arises out of tragic circumstances. A combination of factors combined to produce the rare and devastating injuries that respondent suffered: the FDA’s decision to approve the sale of sulindac and the warnings that accompanied the drug at the time it was prescribed, the decision by respondent’s physician to prescribe sulindac despite its known risks, and Congress’ decision to regulate the manufacture and sale of generic drugs in a way that reduces their cost to patients but leaves generic drug manufacturers incapable of modifying either the drugs’ compositions or their warnings. Respondent’s situation is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the judgment below be reversed. It is so ordered." [/quote] The company that made the generic drug is legally bound by federal law not to alter anything about the drug's chemical composition (and is indeed impossible to do with this drug), nor the warning label. The actual .pdf put out by SCOTUS about this decision goes into more detail that is surprisingly accessible (also explains why they didn't accept the argument that the company should've ceased the sale of the drug. A bloke in the other thread also pointed out that with regards to generic drugs; if one suffers horrendous side effects like this, you should target either the original manufacturer or the FDA and quite frankly I hope the victim does exactly that.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;41467353] The drug company had the option of simply not selling the drug in that state, or willingly paying the medical expenses of people injured by side effects. Instead, the Supreme Court decided that a very technical inconsistency between state and federal law was justification for the company to walk away and not pay a cent to someone whose [I]skin rotted off[/I] because of their drug's side effects. This ruling is bullshit, just like every other 5-4 Republican majority ruling we've had in the last ten years, going all the way back to Bush v Gore. If there was a god, Scalia would have died in a car wreck by now.[/QUOTE] The technicality had to do with labeling and meeting FDA standards, and by all means the drug [I]did[/I]. The state law simply said that drugs that meet the FDA's standards can still be liable for problems that arise, but the company had met the FDA's standards and as such was immune from the law- the FDA was at fault here. The SCOTUS said simply that the state can not nullify federal law in ignoring FDA's acceptance and standards. By all means this is a cut and dry decision and the facts concerning it simply do not nullify legal precedence. If you think that is bullshit then fine, that's great. Most of SCOTUS's decisions are. But if you accept that the law is just and that laws are capable of governing the country then you need to be prepared to say that the law is right even when it's something you don't like. In this case the FDA fucked up, the company took advantage of the situation, and someone was harmed for it. But from the SCOTUS's point of view, their job is (usually) to determine the legality (in theory) of a law or set of laws. They did just that. They are not to blame here, they can't just say "Yea, well, this is the law and this is how it is, but because the situation is fucked then we're just going to rewrite the law to accommodate the right thing in this situation". Also, Scalia is the reason you have a fair chunk of the liberties you do right now. He may be an asshat but his originalist interpretation of the Constitution is what's kept you from having some interesting regulations and limitations on your Bill of Rights.

This source claims that the real reason they didn't award her is because the drug company manufactured a generic version, and they didn't know that the drug would do that, thus they aren't liable because the law says that the company has to copy the original drug in makeup and label. [url]http://www.whas11.com/news/health/Woman-disfigured-by-generic-drug-loses-21-million-award-213708051.html[/url] Which is still ridiculous.

Wow, just wow. This country is going down the tubes, and I'm sick of it.

[QUOTE=Reds;41463682]So, how's that government working out for you, America? Too incompetent to do anything beneficial, but they sure are quick on stuff like this.[/QUOTE] Because I'm sure every country is without problems. Right.

[QUOTE=areolop;41463732]This literally has nothing to do with your "freedom" I can side a bit with the supreme court on this. A drug company obviously cannot know [I]all[/I] side effects of a product before it hits markets -- FDA allows this -- The full effects of a drug are not known for YEARS down the road after its been introduced into the mainstream. Fraud and Mislabeling are the two that should be in this. It should never be ok for anyone - or anything - to defraud, or mislabel their product to consumers. The court went on to say that due to conflicting state and federal laws, drug companies can only be within federal law to be ok to sell. Also:[/QUOTE] The problem with giving the FDA absolute final authority is that it is percieved as quite corrupt, and its inarguably behind the curve on a lot of things. As I recall, biophage tech has gone almost nowhere in the states because the FDA lacks a proper classification for it, and as such it gets stuck in limbo. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this. Either way, the FDA needs a massive overhaul to make it reasonably efficient, and to update what it can and cannot do to keep pace with the current technology.

Title and article are sensationalist as all hell, it seems that whoever wrote this article clearly didn't bother actually reading the court's decision. For those who can't find their way to a law website, I'll give you a hint: The court's decision says nothing about exempting generics from liability or anything of the sort, as the article would have you believe. Gee, I know this is Sensationalist Headlines, but come on, this is just shamelessly bad.