Bush administration goal is "not to shield drug companies" from lawsuits

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/politics/25DRUG.html?ex=1248494400&en=1f9a069022944ec3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

WASHINGTON, July 24 — The Bush administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs and medical devices.

The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In court papers, the Justice Department acknowledges that this position reflects a "change in governmental policy," and it has persuaded some judges to accept its arguments, most recently scoring a victory in the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.

Allowing consumers to sue manufacturers would "undermine public health" and interfere with federal regulation of drugs and devices, by encouraging "lay judges and juries to second-guess" experts at the F.D.A., the government said in siding with the maker of a heart pump sued by the widow of a Pennsylvania man. Moreover, it said, if such lawsuits succeed, some good products may be removed from the market, depriving patients of beneficial treatments.

Bush administration officials said their goal was not to shield drug companies, but to vindicate the federal government's authority to regulate drug products. Patients and their families said they felt betrayed.

[LiviaOlivia]

1. These people have got to go

Who the fuck do they think they are? Someone should tell those whores

"that when you start coming with the customers it's time to quit."

[NightOwwl]

2. Bush values - money to fat corporations

Also from NYT:
"In its court filings, the Bush administration argues that private lawsuits threaten to disrupt a comprehensive nationwide system of drug regulation, and that federal standards pre-empt requirements established by state judges and legislators. In effect, the administration says, if a local judge or jury finds that a drug or device is unsafe, it is in direct conflict with the conclusion reached by the F.D.A. after years of rigorous testing and evaluation."

And since we know the FDA never makes a mistake that's a totally logical explanation. Oh, wait a minute, what was the name of that
FDA approved drug that caused severe birth defects? Oh that's right! It was DES. How could I forget.

So let me see if I understand this. FDA says a drug is safe. It goes on the market and ends up harming lots of people because it is unsafe. But you can't sue because the FDA says it is safe. But if it is hurting people isn't it unsafe? I'm confused. Is this Orwellian, Catch-22, or a bit of both?

[rman]

5. aka globalization;

"...an attempt to extend corporate monopoly control over the entire globe. Over every national economy, over every local economy, over every life.
It does this by treating international corporate property rights and international corporate investment rights a supreme, as taking precedence over all other rights including our democratic souvereighnty." - Michael Parenti

[rman]

3. Allowing any consumer to sue any manufacturer ...

would undermine the economy, right?

[rman]

4. "consumers interfering with federal regulation"...

we used to call that democracy.