Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

SCOTUS to hear case of plaintiffs denied chance to sue medical device mfg. because FDA approved it

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:01 PM
Original message
SCOTUS to hear case of plaintiffs denied chance to sue medical device mfg. because FDA approved it
Edited on Mon Oct-08-07 03:57 PM by blondeatlast
This particular case (Riegel vs. Medtronic) is a citizen denied the right to sue a medical device manufacturer because the defective device was FDA approved. I find that VERY scary! :scared:

Here's the Public Citizen (they are representing the plaintiff) page about the case:

http://www.citizen.org/litigation/forms/cases/CaseDetails.cfm?cID=79

Is anyone here aware of a SCOTUS blog that a layperson might understand? This case really hits home for me as I wear a medical device and am somewhat distrustful of the current FDA.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. That lower court ruling doesn't make sense.
Pharmaceuticals are all FDA-approved for prescription. And big pharma is sued every day of the year for some dangerous effect its product has on patients. Why would a medical device approved by the FDA be distinguished from a pharmaceutical agent and protected from liability?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No legal beagle here, but that's what I thought as well.
Why are medical devices different? And this SCOTUS gives me the creeps; this case could set a very dangerous precedent regarding federal regulatory agencies.

I know the business world is watching this case but I'm watching as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Boring, but important... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here's an article from 2004
which examines the bush admin's efforts in this area.

Bush Wants Immunity from Wrongful Death or Wrongful Injury Lawsuits for Big Pharma

In a Shift, Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits

By ROBERT PEAR - July 25, 2004 New York Times

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.

<snip and a bit more from article>

At that time, the government said that F.D.A. approval of a medical
device set the minimum standard, and that states could provide "additional
protection to consumers." Now the Bush administration argues that the
agency's approval of a device "sets a ceiling as well as a floor."

The administration said its position, holding that individual consumers
have no right to sue, actually benefited consumers.


link to word doc article


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. He's got the court to do it, too--at the same time, the FDA is getting
weaker and weaker.

Not a good time to be sick, for certain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-08-07 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yep. All the ducks are in a row to reward big business, the pharm industry,
almost any corporate entity I can think of, without worrying about any accountability to the "unwashed" and/or sick masses.

And it's all legal. Not moral. Not ethical. But all nice and legal.

Who says they didn't learn a thing or ten from "1984", "Fahrenheit 451", "Mein Kampf" and, "The Prince." The main differences, less obvious maneuvers and fewer deaths splashed on the front pages.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blondeatlast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-09-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. Kick. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC