Generic prescription drug makers cannot be held liable.

The new Russian Roulette: taking generic prescription drugs. If the drug that's suppose to improve your health, instead severely destroys it, and you didn't buy the name brand... then you just have to deal with it.

The Supreme Court has apparently ruled that if you purchase the cheaper, generic version of a prescription drug that your doctor prescribes you, and you develop severe life-altering complications as a result, then you don't have any legal options. You are forbidden from suing for any damages or compensation from the manufacturer.

A woman who was left burned and blinded, nine years after taking a prescription drug, has lost her legal fight for compensation.

Karen Bartlett took a drug to ease shoulder pain back in 2004, but this week the Supreme Court ruled that Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., the maker of the drug should not be held responsible for her injuries because the company had made the brand drug's formula and warning label.

Source


Can you imagine THIS happening to you because of taking a generic prescription, and then finding out that you are barred from seeking any legal damages?

reply to post by okayimhere


That poor woman. How disgusting that no one is being called to account on this matter.

I am shocked. How sad that this poor woman has no legal recourse. Saddest thing here is 21 million is chump change to these pharmaceutical companies. I know why they shrug off their responsibility. open the door for 1 and more will follow. I say if she cant sue the generic maker she should be allowed to sue the brand name drug.

I try not to use any of these chemical cocktails. I know there are natural herbal remedies out there that work just as well or better.

So if the generic drug manufacturers knowingly add high amounts of radioactive material, nerve toxin, live virus' , razor blades, hot peppers, needles, and anti matter,

Then we have no recourse?
We can not make things right?
We can not seek damages?

I bet some law makers were paid off BIG TIME.

I wonder if it is possible for her to make a claim against whoever designed the drug formula. But I'm not sure that anyone has standing for something like this. When a drug becomes generic, basically it's because it has been out on the market for a while. Most of the side effects, even the rare ones, are known by now. Doctors are supposed to discuss these things with patients before giving the Rx. I dunno if most people know this, but once a drug is on the market, it is considered the 4th phase of clinical trials. In earlier phases, you have tested the drug on smaller groups and so the extremely rare side effects may not be discovered. It is strange, but sad, that this woman had such a terrible reaction so long after the drug had been introduced. She does deserve some kind of compensation...these companies have more than enough money to pay out for the few people who get the worst side effects.

would someone please explane to me how a DRUG can burn a person?
Come on people use a little commin sence here the women had some accedent that left her burned and blind and using a drug made by a company ((the drug didnt BURN HER OR BLIND HER)

Stevens-Johnson syndrome.is not the fault of the drug its a rare immune reaction.

You can not sue a wheat farmer because you are gluten intolerant

And you can not sue a Penicillin manufacturer because you have a allergic reaction to it.

This should never have made it to court.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by midnightstar
would someone please explane to me how a DRUG can burn a person?
Come on people use a little commin sence here the women had some accedent that left her burned and blind and using a drug made by a company ((the drug didnt BURN HER OR BLIND HER)

Reading is fundamental especially when arguing a point. You didn't read the article so you have no point.

Originally posted by ANNED
Stevens-Johnson syndrome.is not the fault of the drug its a rare immune reaction.

You can not sue a wheat farmer because you are gluten intolerant

And you can not sue a Penicillin manufacturer because you have a allergic reaction to it.

This should never have made it to court.

en.wikipedia.org...

You are right but is this the point? I think the point here is why anyone would produce a drug that could do this to someone. The woman had some shoulder pain and was prescribe an anti-inflammatory. Why is a medical professional dedicated to healing pushing these kinds of poison when there are so many other alternatives out there? Safe ones. Non chemically engineered. The point is that pharmaceutical companies don't give a %$#& about healing. Its about profits.

The drug was not defective.

Skin began to fall away from her body and she was diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome, a rare and sometimes fatal reaction triggered by certain medications.

Source: www.dailymail.co.uk...

This is the risk one runs when one ingests poison medicine because a person in a white lab coat suggests they do so. The drug companies cannot be held responsible because the poison medicine is clearly labelled to have this side effect. Just read the 4-pages of fine print provided by the manufacturer.

According to this disclosure, there is a small chance that this can happen. If it does, the patient is to see their physician to fix things. If it is not fixable, that is not the fault of the pharmacy nor its poison medicine.

A pharmaceutical should not be sued anyway. They only make poison medicine, convince doctors to recommend their poison medicine to patients, and try to find ways to make better and more effective poison medicine to benefit society. Besides, they have paid many millions of dollars to the politicians in charge so they can make billions poisoning medicating the population.

If anyone hasn't noticed yet, the majority of this post was pure unadulterated sarcasm.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Sarcasm and straight forward no BS facts. My favorite kind of post!

Hi Redneck.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
. . .and try to find ways to make better and more effective poison medicine to benefit society. . .

I hope/think you are doing sarcasm when you said what is up there. . . B-)

We all know that the crap farma make

effective poison medicine to benefit

the shareholder$/stockholder$ !!

If you did sarcasm, no need to answer this message. . .we will understand. B-)

Blue skies.