Posted on 02/22/2011 10:17:55 AM PST by jackspyder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court ruled that federal law shields vaccine makers from product-liability lawsuits in state court seeking damages for a child's injuries or death from a vaccine's side effects.
The high court on Tuesday ruled for Wyeth, which is now owned by Pfizer Inc, in a lawsuit brought by the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who suffered seizures as an infant after her third dose of a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine in 1992.
Pfizer and other vaccine makers had argued that a Supreme Court ruling for the plaintiffs could open the door to a flood of lawsuits -- many by families who believe vaccines cause autism -- and threaten the supply of childhood vaccines.
Pfizer Executive Vice President and General Counsel Amy Schulman said the company was pleased with the ruling.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Excellent!!
I almost want to say a pox on both houses — I’m sick of folks showing up at the Supreme Court and hollering about the bad or good consequences of a reading of a law — heck, someone’s got to win and someone’s got to lose no matter which way they go. The only thing that should matter at that level is whether the reading is correct or not. It’s up to legislatures or constitutional conventions to fix any problem.
I don’t think this is a good ruling at all. The feds protect the pharmaceutical companies from the states and the people they destroy?! One day we may all be required to be vaccinated and the laws in place will mean we have nowhere to turn except to those we can not trust.
The ruling might well be correct, given the law. I’m not sure what is so excellent about a child who is suffering seizures. Pfizer, owner of Wyeth, was also at the heart of the infamous Kelo vs. New London, CT suit. They got their way and have already pulled out stakes (serves New London right).
The law also established an adverse reactions trust fund to take care of those who have reactions since they cannot sue.
This was a just decision.
I do not want vaccines for polio, measles, mumps and rubella to disappear from the market due to jackpot justice at the hands of the Trial Lawyers Association.
You concentrate on the “people the drugs destroy.” Do you care about the tens of thousands who are ALIVE because of the drugs they were given.
Somewhere there will be a drug discovered that will cause the remission of cancers. 75,000 people will beat the dread disease due solely to the drug, but 3 people with have an adverse reaction and succumb.
The company that gave life to the 75,000 cancer sufferers will then be villified and sued into oblivion.
Happy now?
Where does the Constitution give the Federal government the authority to do this? It may win the prize for the "law" that violates the most amendments at once.
Well, it wasn’t autism that convinced me that that sh__ had no business in any child of mine. It was that she went into 4 days of epileptic-like convulsions.
Of course, the dr.s denied that the “baby shots” she’d been given couldn’t have been the cause...
Until she started school and I met several other mothers who had gone through the same thing with their kids.
Then, several years down the line I beleived the BS that my kids couldn’t start school without their shots and took my twins in and did the deed, much against my will. Boy twin got all three kinds of measles from the measles shot!
The end!! Exception for straight tetnus when puncture injuries.
When my youngest was injured and I took him for a tetnus and explained to the doctor that I didn’t DO shots ordinarily, he told me that I was a good mom! His nephew had been permnently brain-damaged by a DPT!
Tell me, why—if someone breaks a thermometer, they clear a school. But it was ok to put mercury in shots? Do we even KNOW what is in these things? Who is overseeing the manufacture? Where do the ingredients come from? According to an article posted here a while ago, at least thirty percent of innoculations are manufactured using fetal tissue!
Does your God really approve of using butchered babies to “protect” your kids?
“I almost want to say a pox on both houses —....”
Is there a vaccine for that?
Today the Supreme Court said that pharmaceutical companies that develop such vaccines are, in fact, protected by a federal law designed to protect them from lawsuits.
I don't think that vaccine would have been developed if just any old state court could bring a judgment against them.
Millions more people would have a damaged retina ~ and that's just from measles.
Logically, a cure that saves 99 people out of 100 and kills 1 out of 100 is an acceptable cure. If the provider of the cure is sued out of business by the family of the 1 who died then the families of those who die because the cure was denied would have the moral right in turn to get vengeance against the family of the 1.
It works both ways.
Frankly I liken this to the Feds requiring MTBE formulated gasoline. Now folks are suing the gas companies over MTBE polluted water supplies. Ooops.
The pickle arises not from informed risk taking but from when other regulations start requiring these medications.
True, of course. Like the Texas gov that ordered all women vaccinated with the dangerous anti-cancer vaccine. The power of the Pharma lobby cannot be minimized.
This is indeed a good ruling, since vaccine manufacturers can’t sell anything at all without approval from the FDA. The FDA approval pretty much puts the burden of proof on the federal government regulators, which is why vaccine manufacturers should be shielded.
If we din’t have regulation then the manufacturers should indeed be held responsible.
It’s the price you pay for big government.
Nope, poor logic in action, as the family of the one was not responsible for the 99 getting the disease in the first place. By your twisted reasoning, if you have enough extra money to feed a starving person, but choose to exercise your right to keep it, the starving person can seek vengence on you.
Er, no. The people who kept other people from getting a cure have directly harmed others by making a cure impossible to receive. Their action would have removed the cure from the market and doomed many others to death. If someone is starving and I won’t give them food they are free to go elsewhere. I won’t stop anyone else from giving away food.
I agree with this ruling. As is human nature everyone wants to sue. I understand. I also know that tje vaccination of children is the number one cause of a long life. This above anything allows human to live into adulthood. People are just spoiled now. Back when polio was killing, crippling and placing children in iron lungs thousands of parents jumped at the chance to have their children line up for experimental vaccines. And guess what we found one that worked. Talk to anyone over 60 and they can tell you of the mothers and fathers begging for medical science to save their children. Now for the very few injured we just want to sue. Better yet vist a cemetary and see all the old graves of all the children dead less than one year of age.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.