Re: In a Shift, Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits
From: art fougner, md (evsono@pipeline.com)
Mon Jul 26 10:45:42 2004
File that under DUH ! lol
art
At Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Richard Chudacoff, MD wrote:
>
>I guess the Pharmaceutical companies' contributions have exceeded the AMA's
>(LOL)
>
>--
>Richard Chudacoff, MD, FACOG
>
>*****HIPAA Confidentiality Notice*****
>
>The documents inside this electronic transmission contain confidential
>information belonging to the sender that is legally privileged. This
>information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named
>above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from
>disclosing this information to any other party and is required to destroy
>the information after its stated need has been fulfilled, unless otherwise
>required by law.
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the
>contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you received this
>electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately to
>arrange for return.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net [mailto:ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net] On Behalf Of
>dean@thehuffpeople.net
>Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 10:32 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L
>Subject: In a Shift, Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits
>
>.
>
>In a Shift, Bush Moves to Block Medical Suits
>
>NY Times
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/politics/25DRUG.html?hp
>
>WASHINGTON, July 24 - The Bush administration has been going to court to
>block
>lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs
>and
>medical devices.
>
>The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such
>injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug
>Administration. In court papers, the Justice Department acknowledges that
>this
>position reflects a "change in governmental policy," and it has persuaded
>some
>judges to accept its arguments, most recently scoring a victory in the
>federal
>appeals court in Philadelphia.
>
>Allowing consumers to sue manufacturers would "undermine public health" and
>interfere with federal regulation of drugs and devices, by encouraging "lay
>judges and juries to second-guess" experts at the F.D.A., the government
>said
>in siding with the maker of a heart pump sued by the widow of a Pennsylvania
>man. Moreover, it said, if such lawsuits succeed, some good products may be
>removed from the market, depriving patients of beneficial treatments.
>
>In 2002, at a legal symposium, the Bush administration outlined plans for
>"F.D.A. involvement in product liability lawsuits," and it has been
>methodically pursuing that strategy.
>
>The administration's participation in the cases is consistent with President
>Bush's position on "tort reform."
>
>Mr. Bush often attacks trial lawyers, saying their lawsuits impose a huge
>burden
>on the economy and drive up health costs. The Democrats' vice-presidential
>candidate, Senator John Edwards, a longtime plaintiffs' lawyer, says his
>proudest accomplishment in Washington was to help win Senate passage of a
>bill
>defining patients' rights, including the right to sue. (The bill never
>became
>law.)
>
>Jay P. Lefkowitz, former director of Mr. Bush's Domestic Policy Council,
>said
>the F.D.A.'s litigation strategy embodied "good health policy and good tort
>reform."
>
>But Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, said the
>administration had "taken the F.D.A. in a radical new direction, seeking to
>protect drug companies instead of the public." Mr. Hinchey recently
>persuaded
>the House to cut $500,000 from the budget of the agency's chief counsel as a
>penalty for its aggressive opposition to consumer lawsuits.
>
>In the Pennsylvania ruling, issued Tuesday, the appeals court threw out a
>lawsuit filed by Barbara E. Horn, who said her husband had died because of
>defects in the design and manufacture of his heart pump. The Bush
>administration argued that federal law barred such claims because the device
>had been produced according to federal specifications. In its briefs, the
>administration conceded that "the views stated here differ from the views
>that
>the government advanced in 1997," in the United States Supreme Court.
>
>At that time, the government said that F.D.A. approval of a medical device
>set
>the minimum standard, and that states could provide "additional protection
>to
>consumers." Now the Bush administration argues that the agency's approval of
>a
>device "sets a ceiling as well as a floor."
>
>The administration said its position, holding that individual consumers have
>no
>right to sue, actually benefited consumers.
>
>The threat of lawsuits, it said, "can harm the public health" by encouraging
>manufacturers to withdraw products from the market or to issue new warnings
>that overemphasize the risks and lead to "underutilization of beneficial
>treatments."
>
>Allison M. Zieve, a lawyer at the Public Citizen Litigation Group who
>represented the plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case, said, "The government
>has
>done an about-face on this issue." If courts accept the administration's
>position, Ms. Zieve said, it would amount to a backdoor type of "tort
>reform"
>that would shield manufacturers from damage suits.
>
>In the Pennsylvania case, the federal appeals court quoted extensively from
>the
>administration's brief and said the views of the F.D.A. were entitled to
>great
>deference because the agency was "uniquely qualified" to determine when
>federal
>law should take precedence over state law.
>
>Bush administration officials said their goal was not to shield drug
>companies,
>but to vindicate the federal government's authority to regulate drug
>products.
>
>Patients and their families said they felt betrayed.
>
--
art fougner, md
ich bin ein New Yorker
|
|
