|
The Michigan law
regarding lawsuit immunity for drug manufacturers is a common
sense law that should not be repealed. The legislature and the
governor were correct to enact this legislation in the 1990s -
and both would be well served to leave it intact now.
Legislative Democrats
who propose rolling back this law are playing on the emotions of
consumers. The LSJ is inflaming the public with its April 13
editorial on the subject. I encourage everyone, Democrats and
Republicans, to step back, take a breath and don't fall for Rep.
Marie Donigan's flawed logic of let's sue the industry because
it makes a lot of money.
The legislation
enacted in the 1990s wasn't about being pro-consumer or
pro-business. It recognized a process that had been put in place
in this country whereby the Food and Drug Administration was
tasked with designating drugs to be safe or unsafe. If the FDA
concludes a drug is safe to market, then it is just common sense
for the company that made the drug to be protected from
litigation when it complies with every regulatory and safety
issue required.
Now there are those
in Lansing, including this paper, who say, never mind. Forget
the mission of the FDA. The new Michigan message to the
pharmaceutical industry will be it doesn't matter if a company
plays by the rules. It doesn't matter if you comply with every
government regulation. We don't like the score, you're liable
baby.
Changing this law is
an open invitation for the trial lawyers to open their "motel"
clinics and recruit litigants, whether consumers have been
harmed or not. The lawyers have done it with asbestos cases.
They'll do it with pharmaceuticals, too.
The law in effect now
offers recourse to consumers if they can prove a drug
manufacturer intentionally misled the FDA during the approval
process. If a company lies or withholds information necessary
for the FDA to make an accurate decision about safety, throw the
book at 'em. We can do that now.
I have taken Vioxx
and Bextra. I am now on another powerful drug to fight my
rheumatoid arthritis. I am well aware of the potential, and
potentially lethal, side effects.
If I happen to
develop one of them I don't think I have a right to sue anyone.
I know the risks. I know I'm supposed to monitor my liver, my
blood and my heart for potential problems. If tests ring an
alarm bell, my doctor and I discuss it and decide what to do. I
don't run off to a trial lawyer and sue the company in hopes of
winning millions.
I'd hate to need a
drug someday and not be able to get it because the
pharmaceutical company that made it and played by the rules
decided not to market it for fear of being sued.
Am I the only one
bothered by this?
|
