We’re pleased to say that Tom Lamb at Drug Injury Watch is a member of the eDrugSearch.com Community. He wasted no time after joining in stirring up a little controversy, posing the following question:
Do you think that this “federal preemption” of drug injury cases is a good idea or bad policy?
Among the responses of community members (which you can see in their entirety here):
It would be horrible policy, because as we all know, the FDA no longer has teeth and is basically run by the pharmaceutical industry. If you then say the pharma companies can’t be sued because of FDA approval, you turn the system into a sick (pardon the pun) joke…
If these drugs are unsafe in the first place, and no communications are made between the physician and the patient in form of a waiver, or agreement (for example, if the drug is a trial and the patient still wishes to try it) then the physician should be held accountable … It’s bad policy and taking away our rights to prohibit suits from occurring…
The thing that I can’t get over is the former FDA chief and a professor at UC San Francisco saying the FDA “doesn’t have the ability at this time to oversee in a comprehensive fashion everything it regulates.” So why does the FDA even exist if they can’t do their job? The drug companies must be held accountable by the public because the FDA is not and cannot do their job…
Realistically, the fact that the pharma companies are trying to use the weak FDA as a shield against responsibility, as expected as it is, is just plain wrong. Yes, we live in an increasingly litigious society and you might get an unreasonably hopeful suit from time to time; it’s a price of doing business.
Seems pretty unanimous to me. But if you have a different opinion, you’re welcome to join us and add it!
