Replies

Sure the families should be made whole, but not by killing our drug companies with unwarranted claims.

If the stuff DOES cause child autism, $250K is not going to pay for the lifelong maintenance, let alone any pain-and-suffering claims. The families will be bankrupted and thrown on welfare.

If the stuff DOES cause child autism, $250K is not going to pay for the lifelong maintenance, let alone any pain-and-suffering claims. The families will be bankrupted and thrown on welfare.

True. I can only wonder what kind of compensation the lawyers and victims are seeking. 10 or 20 million per autistic child? And does the substance actually cause autism?

Well said. There are some myths floating around about how the vultures are supposedly the consumer rights' advocates, not the insurance companies that don't even want to pay when they're obligated to. Isn't it hypocritical, for example, how the medical profession complains that there aren't enough doctors because of lawyers, when in fact the medical profession severely restricts membership? Overseas one can get a medical degree as an undergraduate, and for a lot less money and suffering. In the USA, reliable academic sources have revealed just how few medical students are in the industry for anything but the money. And only 1 in 4 med. malpractice lawsuits results in a favorable award for the plaintiff. Think how much worse those cold & calculating doctors would be if they didn't have such a disincentive though.

For more statistical details:

http://www.atla.org/medmal

Does our Republican Party really want to become known as the party of corporate impunity?

If the stuff DOES cause child autism

Big "if." The only people who seriously believe this are trial lawyers and their ~~well-paid shills~~ expert witnesses. And they just HAPPEN to have a financial stake in the outcome.

Welcome to junk science in the courtroom.