What should we do about our legal system regarding medication class action suits?

Question

I just saw an ad from a legal firm soliciting clients who may have reason for a claim against the makers of Levaquin - a very powerful antibiotic. There is a relationship between Levaquin and tendon problems for some people.

This is an important antibiotic that would not be perscribed unless you had a near-life threatening condition. Even if you had a tendon problem (which is very rare) does curing your infection not justify this side-effect?

Is it reasonable to sue every maker of medication for side effects?

Does this unnecessarily drive up health costs or is it justified because drug companies make so much money?

Is this a good check and balance for potentially dangerous medications?

Answer 1

Remember that even in class action suits, only the people actually harmed can sue for damages. So, the people who used the drug but did not suffer any harm would not part of the designated class.

As far as suits in general, without some accountability as a matter of law, there would be no incentive to make things safe. Say you eliminated class-action suits, or suits against drug companies in general. Let's take it one step further. You have a drug that eliminates cancer in 100% of the people. 99.9% of those live happy lives, and the remaining 0.1% stop having cancer because the drug kills them immediately (just a side-effect).

So, should the drug company be allowed to market this drug, free from threat of civil litigation, because it cures cancer in the remaining 99.9%. So what if a few hundred or a few thousand people die. The benefits to millions of others should offset that, right?

Ok, so what if that small percentage they don't die. They just go blind. Should the drug companies still be immune to liability? Or if they just lapse into a coma for a year, but then are fine (and cancer-free)? Still immune from liability? What about a coma for a week? Or loss of a kidney? Or just have migraines and are throwing up for a week straight? Should the drug companies still be immune to liability?

That's the problem with tort immunity. Either you allow people to recover for the harm suffered, or you don't. The system already calculates damages based on the degree of harm and how permanent the harm is. So, either you draw a bright line and say some types of harm are never recoverable, or you don't. And if you draw the bright line, which of the above examples in the previous paragraph should be recoverable, and which should never be? Think about it.

Answer 2

i like FAFSA. They seize lots tax fraud long previously the IRS does. Your mom owes any effects the IRS hits her with--she became meant to check the tax return on a similar time because it became being crammed out. walking out of the preparer's place of work with a great refund would desire to have been a tip off that something became incorrect. Her declare that the preparer padded the return to maximise EIC and ACTC will fall on deaf ears as she agreed to it by ability of no longer amending till now. (And hint, after some consumers get caught, the preparer's finished customer base would be audited.) As different's have noted, the $1000 owed back is earnings tax that your mom might have owed, so she is the guy who has to pay it back. she will sue the preparer for effects and interest, even yet it is not going she'll get something. She would desire to and would desire to record form 14157 and 14157-A with the IRS.

Answer 3

The solution to ALL civil suits is simple...loser pays. This would stop the dumb *** little old ladies from suing McDonald's because they spill hot coffee on their lap in their car.

Answer 4

SIMPLE, THE PHARMACEUTICAL SHOULD STOP USING HUMANS AS GUINEA PIGS, AND THE LAWSUITS WILL STOP.