y66 Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Good outcome to a heartbreaking story. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/washingt...5scotus.html?hp Bert Rein, an attorney for Wyeth, said the company “fully complied with federal law” in its labeling, and that the F.D.A. “is in the best position to weight the risks and benefits of a medicine.” Gag me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 It sounds to me like the doctor is the one who should be liable here. Can't tell a vein from an artery doctor? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 It sounds to me like the doctor is the one who should be liable here. Can't tell a vein from an artery doctor? Really? Totally agree. How can a drug company be held liable for creating an effective drug that was administered incorrectly? It's mind-boggling. I do, however, agree with the outcome of the ruling regarding immunity for approved pharmeceuticals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 Totally agree. How can a drug company be held liable for creating an effective drug that was administered incorrectly? It's mind-boggling. The laws of this country would at times astound you. For example, a company builds a press for plastics molding. The machine has a safety device to guarantee that the worker does not smash his hand if he cleans the machine with the power on. The company sells the machine to a manufacturer of plastic things. The buyer-manufacturer removes the safety device because it slows down production. The worker's hand is smashed. So, the worker sues his boss and the company that built the machine. The jury finds the employer 99.9% liable, with the company manufacturing the machine 0.1% liable because the company did not come up with a way to make removal of the safety device impossible, or something. Suppose the bill is $1,000,000. You would think that the company with 0.1% liability would be ordered to pay $1,000, right? No. The employer paid worker's comp premiums. So, the worker got something from workers comp, maybe a couple thousand. That gives the employer immunity. Plus, since the State makes all parties jointly liable, regardless of percentage of fault, that means that the company who built the machine pays the full $1,000,000. It gets better. Say that the worker is also responsible, because of his own negligence. That does not matter either. His percentage does not count as a reduction. Gotta love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I agree with the Supreme Court ruling, but I think the jury ruling was nonsense. No, the FDA approving a label doesn't shield the drug company from liability.In this case, though, the label was more than adequate. Maybe if it was being self-administered the label should be longer, but this was something that was given in a hospital. They should know what intra-arterial means and what they should do to prevent it. Besides, when was the last time a doctor actually read a label? Edit: PS http://news.yahoo.com/comics/090301/cx_fra...fqgaSrxKRQP_b4F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 What kind of qualification is needed to be judge at the supreme court? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 What kind of qualification is needed to be judge at the supreme court? you must be nominated by the prez and approved by the senate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 I didn't follow the arguments, but found it interesting that in this case Clarence Thomas voted against Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosene Posted March 4, 2009 Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 In some cases if the employer is grossly negligent, they cannot hide behind the workers compensation statute - so they would be liable for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 It sounds to me like the doctor is the one who should be liable here. Can't tell a vein from an artery doctor? Really? I wouldn't really consider a "physician's assistant" the same thing as a doctor. It also seems that she settled with the clinic separately for their negligence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobowolf Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I didn't follow the arguments, but found it interesting that in this case Clarence Thomas voted against Scalia, Roberts, and Alito. That happens. I haven't read too many opinions by Roberts or Alito, but Thomas in general strikes me as more principled (in a value-neutral sense, i.e. more likely to address an issue based on his underlying beliefs about the process than the result in a particular case) than most of the other justices. He was also on the other side of Scalia in the medical marijuana case, which had big Commerce Clause/states' rights implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 What kind of qualification is needed to be judge at the supreme court? Exactly. Quoting from the article: Ronald Rogers, a spokesman for Merck, said, “We believe state courts should not be second-guessing the doctors and scientists at the F.D.A.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 It sounds to me like the doctor is the one who should be liable here. Can't tell a vein from an artery doctor? Really? The article mentioned that the clinic was also sued. The article said that the suit against Wyeth was that the warnings weren't strong enough. Presumably their contention was that if the warnings had stressed the danger better, the clinic would have taken more care -- perhaps a real doctor would have done the treatment instead of a PA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I should clarify that I meant ONLY the doctor should be liable IMO. That doesn't mean I disagree with the ruling, since it's made on the arguments presented. They argued once the FDA approves their warning then it's adequate, which I don't agree with. It just seems to me wrong that someone would sue the drug company at all for a screw up by their medical professional. But of course I've never had a limb amputated, and for that matter I've never been presented with an opportunity to acquire millions of dollars for myself, so I can't say for sure how I would feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I should clarify that I meant ONLY the doctor should be liable IMO. I'm sure it's semantics, but which "doctor" do you mean? Do you mean the physician's assistant who negligently administered the medicine, the physician for the patient who prescribed the medicine, or the clinic who employed both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 I should clarify that I meant ONLY the doctor should be liable IMO. I'm sure it's semantics, but which "doctor" do you mean? Do you mean the physician's assistant who negligently administered the medicine, the physician for the patient who prescribed the medicine, or the clinic who employed both? You are right about it's semantics. I mean the human being who put a shot in the arm. Sorry if that person has not yet passed his or her medical exam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 5, 2009 Report Share Posted March 5, 2009 The article said that the suit against Wyeth was that the warnings weren't strong enough. Presumably their contention was that if the warnings had stressed the danger better, the clinic would have taken more care -- perhaps a real doctor would have done the treatment instead of a PA. Or maybe if it's not uncommon for the IV to hit an artery rather than a vein, the doctor would have prescribed a drug that isn't dangerous when such a mistake is made. Of course, the real reason why they sued the drug company is because that's where the money is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.