This story is far from the beaten path. SCROTUS are the extreme, activist ideologues on SCOTUS, who care more for millionaires, billionaires, and corporate criminals than for the US Constitution. Once in a while, SCROTUS does something that obviously has to be wrong, and makes absolutely no sense. Then comes the light bulb moment.
Dozens of suits against drug companies have been dismissed in federal and state courts because of a decision by the Supreme Court last year that makes it virtually impossible to sue generic manufacturers for failing to provide adequate warning of a prescription drug’s dangers. This outrageous denial of a patient’s right to recover fair damages makes it imperative that Congress or the Food and Drug Administration fashion a remedy.
This situation is particularly bizarre because patients using the brand-name drug can sue when those using the generic form of the drug cannot, as explained by Katie Thomas in The Times on Wednesday. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that a Vermont woman who had her hand and forearm amputated because of gangrene after being injected with a brand name antinausea drug could sue the manufacturer for inadequate warning of the risks; she won $6.8 million from Wyeth.
In 2011, the court ruled that similar failure-to-warn suits could not be brought against makers of generic drugs. As a result, an Indiana woman who was also forced to have her hand amputated because of gangrene after being injected with a generic version of the same antinausea drug had her case dismissed.
Same drug. Same devastating health consequences. Opposite results… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
There can be no doubt that this is thoroughly unjust. But why would the fascist five make a decision that appears to favor the generic drug companies over Big Pharma? Then came the light bulb. Appearances can be deceiving. Any consumer, who wishes to preserve their ability to sue in such a case, is forced to pay Big Pharma ten, twenty or more times the actual generic value of the med, thus expanding Big Pharma’s profits. I think that is the SCROTUS skullduggery in this situation.
If a Republican wins the White House, we are guaranteed more ideologue Injustices like Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, a fate our Constitution cannot survive.
17 Responses to “SCROTUS Skullduggery”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Let’s see…. the President has reign over Congress and SCOTUS has reign over the president. Who has reign over SCOTUS?
The President during appointment time and the Senate during confirmation time. After that, nobody.
Generics are consumed by the commoners….the wealthy can afford to pay for the brand name & by God, those rich folk deserve to sue if THEY are injured! Most ALL lawsuits favor the rich….if you are poor & get crippled at work & want $500K, it is argued in court that you are trying to ‘gain the system & get a windfall’….if you are upper middle class & not struggling financially and get hurt at work, you are graciously compensated for loss of future earnings…..doesn’t matter that the poor person is young & had an upwardly mobile future possible! POOR PEOPLE ARE DIRT!
Zada, you make an excellent point. I agree,
Seems not so long ago the SCOTUS was composed of people of honor , with ethics – now they are a bunch of paid whores-
Well, 4.5 are. 🙂
“SCROTUS are the extreme, activist ideologues on SCOTUS, who care more for millionaires, billionaires, and corporate criminals than for the US Constitution.”
The damage done by politically active SCOTUS makes me ill, literally…
Indeed, Richard.
This activist, corporatist Supreme Court, which I no longer trust or value, is the biggest reason I now consider myself to be an American Dissident.
That’s a good reason, Jack.
It seems Big Pharma has Scrotus by the scrotum.
It’s more like SCROTUS has us by the scrotum.
Well at least some of us! The rest, those of the female persuasion, don’t have, or at least shouldn’t have any rights to our bodies according to the Greedy Old Pharts so we don’t matter one iota!
Here in BC, Fair Pharmacare ie the provincial government, has a price agreement with the pharmaceutical companies. Once the patent is off and generics are on the market, then the pharmacy normally switches to generic versions which are normally a lot cheaper, but in my experience, they always ask me first. It would be interesting to see if something untoward like that noted in the article to the 2 women happened in BC, could we sue the provincial government as it mandates what can be dispensed. If there are other conditions that complicate the situation, the brand names can be taken but that is on a case by case basis. I was leary of generics so I always ask if there is any difference in side effects or efficacy at the pharmacy when it is offered.
As to SCOTUS, when did these nimrods become pharmacists, or God forbid, doctors (I find doctors know squat about the drugs compared to pharmacists) so that they understand what they are playing at? The only thing they know how to doctor is the law, and they do a crappy job at that, or well at least 5 of them do.
What can I say. They just need to be replaced.
Catch 22. The insurance companies push generics. If you insist on the originals they have the right to refuse to pay after a few refills and often do so.
I don’t see one couldn’t sue both the generic and the original manufacturer for improper warnings. Then there’s the whole issue of the FDA being the lackey of the big and little pharm. Again, the best Govt money can buy.
Good point, Phil. I switched from Lipitor to Simvastatin at the insistance of my insurance.