Here you go kid. If it kills you, then too bad!
Niagara Falls Reporter Opinion — Obscure and interesting news. Another scam I am sure.
OLEAN — Last week’s column warned of imminent federal legislation that would toss powerful pharmaceutical companies billions of dollars and complete protection from liability suits in case untested and experimental bird flu vaccines damage American recipients. It drew heavy response.
The bill (S. 1873) — a big congressional wet kiss to the drug industry — is dressed up in a noble-sounding title: “Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act.”
In essence, however, it would force Americans to receive inoculations against a disease that has yet to kill one of them, while removing their constitutional right to seek redress in our courts in case of injury or death from the shots because of company negligence. The proposal, now moving its way through the Senate, would also ban citizens from using the Freedom of Information Act and other popular informational laws to discover whether the new vaccine (when it is finally produced) was effective and safe, and even whether anyone had suffered adverse reactions to it.
via mad dog mike
Picture does not show
The greater societal good versus the rights of the individual can be debated for an eternity. In an era of panic and fear, the individual rights will almost certainly lose. The cable news networks are pushing this nation over the edge, along with politicians seeking press for campaign contributions.
While some virus may eventually wipe us out, I’m very tired of the yearly hype about some disease du jour (or du année, I guess) that, odds are, I’m never going to get. Bird Flu is quite probably one.
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk=BIRDFLU-11-09-05&cat=WW
Someone’s pulling your leg – S. 1873 was (last) the American Missle Protection Act of 1998. There is no active S. 1873 at this time. It’s nice to know that you can look like a schmuck with so little help.
There is an act (S.1880 National Biodefense and Pandemic Preparedness Act of 2005) that includes a section (Title VIII, Section 801) providing for Federal indemnification of manufacturers and health care professionals, but it does not address the right to sue. It amends the Public Health Service Act to extend coverage beyond the smallpox arena, and provides that the Federal Government will indemnify the drug companies, etc. in the event of suits brought in case of a national emergency.
RTaylor, no one seriously believes this has ANYTHING to do with the greater societal good. This is solely about an industry wanting to keep more of their profits by avoiding any responsibility for their actions.
Which is hilarious if you think about it. Isn’t the Right supposed to be the party so in favor of personal responsibility? I guess that concept applies to poor minorities and not rich corporations.
Nearest as I can tell there is no requirement to participate in the inoculation. Unless the government is requiring you to participate this seems to be a non-issue.
“Nearest as I can tell there is no requirement to participate in the inoculation”
What does that have to do with anything? No one forces you to buy a Ford. But if it’s designed or built negligently and you’re injured you can sue. Why should health care be any different?
The Right just believes in not suing business out of existence. When you balance the potential liability in our litigious society vs. the potential profits, drug companies would be crazy to offer these vaccines on such a mass scale without some protection. It’s just not worth the risk anymore.
Until we get people involved in the legal system who actually understand medicine and science, instead of the average retarded jury that listens to a medical “expert” that is paid and then awards someone millions of dollars for being the 1 out of 100,000 or a million that has a negative reaction. There is always some risk in medical treatment, and the legal system needs to regulate incompetence and gross negligence, not negative outcomes.
Same for punishing lawyers for filing frivolous law suits. There should be a “retarded standard” of acceptability. Not “Would a reasonable person find the filing of this lawsuit to be retarded?”, but more like “Is this the kind of lawsuit that a retarded person would file?”
TC Moore, you talk about “balance” and the need for “SOME protection.” Exactly what did you read?! The legislation calls for complete immunity. I’m all for balance. I think we’re all for balance. But eliminating our right to sue for negligent behavior is not about balance. It’s about greed.
Ima, how do you define “negligent?”
No vaccine or drug or medical procedure is perfect. If we have to vaccinate millions of people in the face of an epidemic, voluntary or not, there will be thousands of adverse reactions to the vaccine, maybe even death. Would that make the drug makers “negligent”?
There will be dozens of lawsuits filed for those adverse outcomes. In today’s jury system, each patient not only will be compensated for the consequent medical costs, but has the opportunity to win the lottery.
Given this legal climate, a drug maker would crazy to vaccinate all those people without protection. The legislation is saying “the current vaccine(s) are better than nothing” at this point, if the bird flu reaches our shores. Beggars can’t be choosers.
And since such lawsuits would be filed under any pretense, using any available loophole or conceivable angle, a blanket immunity is the only reasonable option. Theoretically, the vaccine maker should be sued if their production processes did not meet regulatory standards, and that lead to harming someone, for example. Given the recent shutdown of that Chiron plant in Britain, that may be a real risk. But allowing that approach will guarantee the same amount of lawsuits as before, all pursuing that theory, with discovery and the associated costs to the legal system and the vaccine maker.
The risk of losing money is too great for the vaccine makers to participate without blanket immunity. And the legislation is implying that the risk and cost of thousands of deaths in a flu pandemic is greater than the risk of a vaccine maker being negligent.
To sum up the previous post: “How does not allowing someone to win the lottery through a lawsuit, ‘screw the public’?”
As if giving back profits to the “public” through outrageous jury awards was the accepted way of balancing corporate “greed” and consumer “interests” (where interests could be suffering a horrible vaccine complication or suffering a horrible bout of the bird flu; you roll the dice.)
T.C. Moore, let’s turn this around. I think we both admit that no person is perfect, just as no company is perfect. And if a company can be absolutely immune for screwing up, shouldn’t people get the same benefit of the doubt?
I propose henceforth that all employees are absolutely immune from terminations, firings, demotions, etc. Sure some employees screw up and screw off. But that simply doesn’t matter. Why would anyone EVER decide to work knowing he could get fired at a drop of a hat?
Ok, I’m back to being serious again. Do you HONESTLY believe my proposed system would lead to more productive workers or less productive workers? As you’ll no doubt choose the latter, how could you possibly think that absolute immunity on the part of a corporation will lead to greater safety?!
Your arguments have been used for over a century and they have no merit. Get over it. If someone screws up, yes, even a corporation, they should pay for any damages they cause.
This isn’t a case of “if a company screws up.” We can be almost certain that a small %, but seemingly large number of people will have adverse reactions to the vaccination. In today’s litigous society, it’s far more likely that a company will simply pass on developing a vaccine because of the risk, than a company putting out a shoddy vaccine.
I’m all for this legislation, because lawyers will otherwise ruin it for the rest of us.
For those of you that missed it in Rolling Stone Magazine, this article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. does an excellent job of exposing the FDA and drug company hand holding. It’s not a short article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7395411?rnd=1132125536550&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212
You argument that companies will stop producing has been used for a century and is utterly invalid. Despite slip and falls, stores still open. Despite traffic related lawsuits, cars and roads are still built. Despite divorces, people still get married.
The problem you have is that you have no first hand experience with the system. Thus, you don’t realize that our judicial system IS self correcting.
Here’s the first point. You read about frivolous lawsuits in the paper. The first thing you should realize is that the reasons those lawsuits are news IS because they are rare. If they were truly a common occurrence they wouldn’t make the news.
Second, while the media reports about the verdict, they NEVER report about the correction. I work for a judge and his biggest verdict arose out of a multiple vehicle collision arising out of a truck driver falling asleep on an expressway. Negligence was certain as the driver was forced by his employer to drive for about 20 hours straight without any sleep.
Anyway, one plaintiff who received third degree burns but lived and fully recovered received a 45 million dollar verdict. It was a huge story and got lots of press. What wasn’t reported was that the judge reduced it down to 1.5 million. And what also wasn’t reported was that the case settled for half of that.
There was another case in a different judge’s court. A male nurse restrained a female patient at a hospital and fucked in her mouth. He was sent to jail for life. But it wasn’t over, the victim sued the hospital and the jury awarded 3 million. That was widely reported. However, what was never reported was that the verdict was not allowed to stand. Employers cannot be held responsible for criminal acts of their employees. Thus, the victim ended up with nothing more than the satisfaction that he’ll never see the light of day.
Is our judicial system perfect? No. But that does not mean we should toss it out. People and companies make mistakes and those mistakes cause injuries. It’s a fact you don’t seem to admit as you’re biased into think that ALL cases are frivolous. But when mistakes are made the victims deserve just compensation. I see no reason why that system should be destroyed merely to protect W’s friends.
TC Moore
I disagree with the theme of your comments. People, and Corporations, need to take responsibility for their actions. If anyone commits a harm with reckless disregard for others, then they must be made to repair the damages. It is called tort. It seems that you feel every law suit is frivolous. A lot are, but as Ima pointed out, almost all frivolous suits are dismissed at a very early stage. Can you tell me of a frivolous case that made it through trial to a verdict?
If you mention the MacDonalds Coffee Burn suit, which version are you going to recite, the classic bull used by those against “responsibility” or the truth where MacDonalds was aware that at least 700 people had already been seriously burned by their superheated coffee, the plaintiff had third degree burns to her legs and privates, the plaintiff wasn’t the driver (as commonly stated), the car was not in motion, the lid was not on the cup, the cups were so thin the plaintiff could not hold the cup, the MacDonalds vice-president not only admitted all this, but said MacDonalds would continue to superheat their coffee, regardless if anyone got hurt because they got more yield that way.
http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
Got any other frivolous cases? How about the one where the farmer leaned his ladder against the barn. He placed it on top of a manure pile and sued the ladder manufacturer because it fell. Guess what, even though Ronald Regan used this example for tort reform, IT NEVER HAPPENED. It is simply a made up story.
For some more stories, try http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp
Every day in America, millions of transactions and interactions occur. Only a very small number of these ever result in one party feeling wronged and even fewer will be end up in court. Your case for frivolous lawsuits just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
A final addition to Ima’s comment #16. When “frivolous” lawsuits are reported, often they are are a one sided, distorted recounting of the events. The wire services share these stories with little fact checking. Secondly, often some torts are so difficult to prove, yet the wronged party will try anyway. An example would be where someone is fired for having made a complaint about their employer for safety, hours of work, etc. When the company dismisses the employee they will use some other non-existent reason and then force the employee to prove otherwise. Because the plaintiff can not come up with sufficient evidence to prove otherwise, the case is usually dismissed as frivolous.