From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.

[kach22i]

July 7, 2013
Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits
Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits


This should help lower medical insurance costs, right?

Just beware of those flesh-eating side effects.

[VINMAN]

Guess thats why those pharmaceutical commercials have 10 mins of disclaimers listing the possible side effects.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

Guess thats why those pharmaceutical commercials have 10 mins of disclaimers listing the possible side effects.

Except the flesh-eating side effects were not listed on this drug.

Please read the article.

[flatbutt]

That's because a generic manufacturer must produce and market their copy of the drug in exactly the same manner as the inventor. That's the way the Federal law is written.

You want less expensive generic medicine? This is how you get it. Mutual is a generic manufacturer. They are required to produce an exact copy of the original drug. Including the label. It's the law.

The inventor would be the one with ultimate responsibility, especially if they knew of the side effect and covered it up.

[VINMAN]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Except the flesh-eating side effects were not listed on this drug.

Please read the article.

I read the article. Whats your point??

[kach22i]

The original link must have gotten overloaded, the below links currently work.

Originally Posted by flatbutt

Mutual is a generic manufacturer. ................

The inventor would be the one with ultimate responsibility, especially if they knew of the side effect and covered it up.

Nope.

Second paragraph.
Supreme Court rules drug companies exempt from lawsuits -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels.

Third paragraph.
Supreme Court rules drug companies exempt from lawsuits -- Puppet Masters -- Sott.net

In 2004, Karen Bartlett was prescribed the generic anti-inflammatory drug Sulindac, manufactured by Mutual Pharmaceutical, for her sore shoulder. Three weeks after taking the drug, Bartlett began suffering from a disease called, 'toxic epidermal necrolysis'. The condition is extremely painful and causes the victim's skin to peel off, exposing raw flesh in the same manner as a third degree burn victim.

Flatbutt is right, that is a generic drug manufacturer.

Another viewpoint on it.

Opinion analysis: Court reaffirms tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=166652

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Companies that make generic drugs have to sell the same product and use the same label as the original “branded” drug approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The issue in this case is whether someone who is injured by the side effects of a generic drug can sue the manufacturer on the ground that that the generic drug, taking account of its label, is unreasonably dangerous. In this case, the label in question did not mention the side effect that caused the injury (which took the form of third-degree burns on much of the plaintiff’s body). The answer is that the plaintiff cannot sue the manufacturer. Because the FDA has approved the product and the label, the state court cannot impose damages for harm from using the product.

YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN..................and don't expect no stinking warning label.

[red-beard]

Hey, they are doing better than the PCB manufacturers. A product, not just legal, but mandated by Federal Law. When the SHTF, the Feds held the manufacturers liable for cleanup...

[gprsh924]

Wouldn't this be a government problem that they didn't properly test/approve the drug/ label?