It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Generic drug makers don't have to warn of new risks, court says

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Generic drug makers don't have to warn of new risks, court says


www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN) -- Two women who say they suffered severe medical complications from a generic drug lost their Supreme Court appeal Thursday, essentially ending their separate lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The justices in a 5-4 ruling said generic drug companies do not share the same level of responsibility as makers of brand-name equivalents, to update their warning labels when significant new risks emerge.
The financial and safety implications from the court's ruling, could prove enormous. Generic drugs currently account for more than 70% of prescriptions filled in the U
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is absolutely ridiculous!

They are saying generic drug manufacturers have different rules then brand-name ones. That if a new risk they see comes up from their drug they are not obligated to add it to the warning labels and inform the people who are taking of them that they could be in harm.

The two women in the case were given a prescription for heartburn and acid reflux, and their pharmacists filled the prescription with a generic equivalent by PLIVA, Inc and Actavis, Inc. After using it for a long period of time they developed a neurological disorder. Their also appears to have been evidence of the dangers, but the companies never changed the warning labels.

This is extremely sad to me that the Supreme Court would rule this way. It is apparently more important for the drug companies to make their money, then have the people who are taking these drugs get sick, diseases, etc. These drugs are supposed to make them better, not worse off.

How can one feel safe taking anything from these drug manufacturers.

Everyday it seems I see another example of how this country disgusts me. And this is the example of today.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by theUNKNOWNawaits
 


I agree with you! Thats crazy.
It completely takes accountability away from the company.
So they can essentially do what they want!

Could people sue under something like 'product was not as described' or something similar
We have the sale of goods and services act here, would that not count?

On one side I cant believe that this happened and on the other, could it really have gone any other way?

An individual taking on pharma 9 times out of 10 will lose.
Infuriating, unfair and sad



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by soundofathousandbirds
 


It is indeed insane, now when you get a generic drug you will not know all the possible risks that are involved with the drug. I do not know why anyone would want to get generic drugs now, when they do not know what they are getting themselves into. More money to the brand names will be the affect here, I think.

The two women sued that they were not provided the proper warnings of the risks of long-term use of this generic drug; and it did not work.
I do not think we have anything like the sale of goods and services act here in the US or it would have been used in this case I would hope. Though I could be wrong and if I am someone please correct me.

Yeah, I guess I should not be too surprised by the results, yet still I hoped people's lives would somehow be more important here than the money for these companies.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I don't know about you, but i go to wikipedia every time I consider taking a new drug.


Long-term use should be avoided in patients with clinical depression as it may worsen mental state.[3] Also contraindicated with a suspected bowel obstruction.
en.wikipedia.org...


I can't deny that I feel SCOTUS total dropped the ball, but I've come to expect it from them.

It's everyone for themselves, you need to be your own 'Doctor' and research your own drugs now.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GalacticJoe
 


I definitely agree with you that one does need to do their own research. In the times we are in there is absolutely no one out there helping you out, especially when they can make a profit off of it, even if it can cause damage or death to you.

There are though a lot of people out there who do not know what is going, do not have the time, or simply trust there doctors and pharmacists, and these companies. Practically putting their lives in the hands of those who do not care about their lives.

This is why I had hoped SCOTUS, would rule in favor of the people hear, so people could be informed on the labels of what they are taking, what can happen to them.

It is a sad world we are living in, when you are alone in deciding what to do with your health and can not trust these people.



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Why should they have to reveal such information? You do know that ethics and morals are a thing of the past, right? So what if people die from their cheep drugs. Humans are dispensable in the eyes of the covernment. To quote the great Andrew Bird, 'You're predisposed. That's all for questions; the case is closed.'



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I find it hysterically groupthink-ish to hear things like: "So they can essentially do what they want!", the numerous 'profit over people' nonsense that results from the assumption of the consumer's idiocy (which is more harmful to the customer than any medication side-effects), "when you are alone in deciding what to do with your health".

Seriously. Can no one think and research for themselves these days without a nanny on speed dial?

It's kind of hard to sell medication to dead customers, or worse yet, customers develop illnesses because of the medications and then spreading the word. Eventually, people will stop buying it and the manufacturer will go out of business. You can't make profits without a business.

Now we need to go one step further: remove the mandatory laws that require warnings on all labels.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
1st off wow, digging a little guys on a year old thread, but I dig it lol.

reply to post by brukernavn
 


Yes, I do realize ethics and morals are a thing of the past. However, don't you think that is wrong and should be changed? - That was my point

reply to post by imherejusttoread
 


My point was there are a lot of old people who don't even know how to research and are in homes, who are prescribed this by their doctors and simply believe them. Its the lifestyle they grew up in.
Of course younger people know how to research, but the whole point of this was not aimed at young people but at the millions of older people who are stuck in their old ways and are taking 10-20 medications a day for the problems.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Drugs cure NOTHING!!!

That's really all that i have to say.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by theUNKNOWNawaits
 


My point was there are a lot of old people who don't even know how to research and are in homes, who are prescribed this by their doctors and simply believe them.


"Possible side effects include:...". If everyone really read the label and cared about what it said no one would use any pharmaceuticals.

So why not sue the doctors who prescribed the drug without warning their patient? Or the pharmacist who sold them the generic instead of the brand-name drug which did carry the warning? No, sue the deepest pocket.

Actually there does seem to be a problem but the problem is with the law. Change it.




top topics



 
4

log in

join