Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

They'll just continue suing physicians to recoup losses..this is bad...wow...i didnt even know about this bogus ruling...

For people info TEN(Toxic epidermal necrolysis) is a very dangerous and life threatening result of a drug reaction. A significant portion of your body's skin literally looses its integrity and detaches. But if a drug company fails to find that this could be a potential complication of the drug, why are they even forced to research about a given drug's side effects. This is a terrible decision by SCOTUS...

 

I don't understand it. How can they rule that? Damn...

 

OK, so it doesn't help this poor, poor lady but I found this.

 

money rules the world

 

Wait wait wait..

This is not about 'pharmaceutical companies being exempt from lawsuits' (very misleading thread title).. this is about generic 'copies' of originating pharm companies being exempt.

Big difference.

The generic makers cannot possibly either do or duplicate all of the testing and safety procedures that the originating companies do. That is WHY generics are cheaper after all.

They rely completely on the FDA and the originating companies due diligence and on them being forthcoming if there are problems or issues.

The solution to the problem is to simply force the originating companies to be liable, even if the drug was manufactured by a generic maker. Or, as the article suggests, put the onus on the generic makers by making them change the label, thus putting more safety responsibility on their backs.

Personally, I would be in favor of the first idea, as the second would raise generic prices across the board, or worse, put them out of business altogether.

Which would amount to a tax on everyone, and not a good idea.

 

I don't exactly agree with SCOTUS, but this is a misleading title and biased article. In fairness this only applies to generics. The original manufacturer presumably can still be sued (in this case, I wonder if she can sue Merck now, since the original case only seemed to be against the generic manufacturer). Making generic companies responsible for drugs they didn't research will drive the costs of generics up. And given how expensive name brand medicine is generics are a great for the less wealthy to get their meds. Plus, generic companies can still be sued if it can be proven that the drug is not the same as the name brand (say a manufacturing error).


My only problem with the ruling is that sometimes side effect take years to come to light where there may not be an original manufacturer to sue.

 

so sue the FDA then.

 

You can't sue the FDA.

But you CAN insist that your Dr. doesn't prescribe you a generic. Yes, they are cheaper. Have you ever heard the saying, you get what you pay for?

Generics are not identical to the originals. They are facsimiles. I try to avoid generics because the labels are based off the original but yet the drug isn't exactly like the original.

 

The generic makers could in turn sue the brandname makers for the losses they incurred due to a lawsuit over inadequate labeling. Though I suppose they probably would not win.

That the generics deliver cost-savings by piggy-backing on the work of other companies isn't much of a defense in my eyes. If they want to make money selling a product and just trust that it doesn't have undisclosed serious side-effects, they should pay the damages that result. That's the cost of doing business. It'll probably still be cheaper than doing the R&D themselves. The SC just handed them a subsidy, essentially.

I hope the poor lady manages to get money out of Merck at least.

 

Good pick up...then I went to try reading the summary of the Opinion of the court and the dissidents...the issue is more on generic drugs .

My thoughts on this is that often times generic drugs(a pharmacist can verify) are almost identical to the brand from which it originated. Most of these drugs should have identical sideeffects to the brand identical. However, this one patient suffered from a drug complication known as T.E.N. It is very dangerous, and probably severely disfigured her(and she couldve died).

But my thoughts on this matter is that if you decide to take the more affordable medication to its parent drug, there should be no reason why the side effects should be any different. If anything, this hurts the generic drug market tremendously as more doctors may be fearful of lawsuits, and really only recommend brand drugs(who knows???) I really do feel for the lady, and this was a very difficult decision for the courts. "who should be liable."

I disagree with the premise that the patient should go after the parent brand drug, the patient never consumed their product.

 

You cannot have a law mandating the generic drug manufacturer use the same labeling as the original manufacturer and then allow the generic manufacturer to be sued based on that label. That would mean they are being sued for complying with the law. You could get rid of the FDA and leave liability in the hands of manufacturers of course, but I doubt the people against this ruling would favor that solution.