Generic Drug Users Beware
 

While we argue about the rights of Zimmerman and Martin, the guys in the black robes pass another law which we had all better know about.

I will include a link, but basically this law gives you absolutely no option to sue a generic drug manufacturer regardless of any harm the drug may cause you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/op...rugs.html?_r=0

In other countries we would be rioting in the street as each and every day our rights are given away. But here in the USA I guess we just accept it and move on, they are always, afterall, talking about the other guy, not me!

And we should continue to have the right to pay a bit more for Name brand when needed as the generics are ineffective. We are alking about one's life.

Big business always seems to find a way to win.

NO law was passed....a Supreme Court ruling was handed down...a HUGE difference..and your link is one persons OPINION on that ruling.

Did you read the ruling and the responsibility of the user ???

Correctomundo!! The guys in black robes DO NOT pass laws.

It's not about our lives anymore.
 

We should all know by now that its all about money.....we are just another human body. They don't care if we live or die. It's obvious because they can approve certain drugs to help people....... say with a life threatening decease such as cancer or AIDS or they can choose not to approve it, thus one may lose their life. If insurances choose not to cover a costly prescription, then one may die because they cannot afford it. It's really a sad state of affairs. Same with generic drugs....they don't approve the one you need....too bad.

That's part of it, the other part is this. If you become sick due to a drug you have no recourse. In the end, depending on your issue, the taxpayers end up paying for your care. The drug company gets a big get out of jail card.

OK here is the history of Bartlett.

Karen Bartlett, the plaintiff in the original suit, and the respondent to Mutual’s petition, was issued a prescription of Clinoril, the name-brand version of sundilac – a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The pharmacist engaged in the common practice of exchanging the name-brand drug for the generic equivalent and provided Ms. Bartlett with sundilac. Ms. Bartlett suffered from toxic epidermal necrolysis; the condition disfigured Ms. Bartlett, leaving her disabled and nearly blind. When Ms. Bartlett took the drug, it did not carry a warning on its label for toxic epidermal necrolysis. Initially, the lower courts decided with Ms. Bartlett, that her pain, suffering and the wrong of of Mutual justified the jury’s award of $21 million. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has now reversed those decisions.

Now you can nit pick my post, claim it is only one person's link or opinion, but I think anyone can read it or other sources and come to the conclusion that its a basic protect big business decision. Unbelievable that this country who went to war with England for the right to trial, now has it shot down by it's own Supreme Court.

IT IS NOT A LAW !!!!

Did you get that point..that is the major point...it was a court decision..NOT A LAW !!! That is what has to be clear to folks...NO LAW WAS PASSED BY ANYONE.

whatever, I think the issue is there for you to read. The basic premise it that we are no match for big business. Especially when we now have a court that rules in the favor of big business all the time it seems.

A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still..................

Say WHAT????????????????????

Law or not ... Someone tell me, inform how this ruling helps Joe Citizen the consumer? This is all about big business. Us consumers just sit back and accept.

all drugs have side effects. TEN is a known risk of every NSAID whether or not it is on the label. Severe adverse skin reactions to nons... [Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI The medication she took was in every way identical to the brand name medication. It had the same ingredients, the same labeled risks, and the same unlabeled risks as the brand name. Had she been given the brand name drug rather than the generic it would have made no difference. The court held that since generics must be identical to brand name meds they cannot change the medication and call it a generic version. They also cannot change the label of benefits or of risks of that medication. The consumer has exactly the same protection whether you take a brand name or a generic. Keep in mind that because something bad happens does not mean a mistake was made. Every drug has benefit and risk which must be balanced. The risk however is never zero. So every time you take a motrin or a generic ibuprofen the risk is the same and TEN is one of the risks.

If you don't want it to be all about "big business", then you'd want competition from smaller, lesser-known companies to be able to produce generics which cost the consumer a WHOLE lot less than the original/trade-name drug.

It certainly would not have benefited the consumer if a generic mfr. were put out of business because of a $21 million judgement against the smaller company competing with a giant one.....especially when the generic mfr. is (by law) making the exact same chemical product and labels it the same way the original mfr. does.

This, which blueash said it important to know and understand:

"The consumer has exactly the same protection whether you take a brand name or a generic. Keep in mind that because something bad happens does not mean a mistake was made. Every drug has benefit and risk which must be balanced. The risk however is never zero."