The Court Confronts a Grievous Injury

[groovedaddy]

For years, the Bush administration has worked with industry to try to water down the public’s protections by preventing states from enforcing rules and regulations tougher than those required by the federal government.

It has tried to apply this policy of pre-emption to rules issued by a slew of federal agencies and is now asking the Supreme Court to approve its improper ideological stand when it comes to drug safety.

On Monday, the court heard arguments in the case of a Vermont musician who lost her arm after being injected with an anti-nausea drug. There is no doubt that Diana Levine was badly injured by a drug made by Wyeth. The only question is whether the Supreme Court will uphold her right to sue the company over its failure to adequately warn of a drug’s dangers. Or will it buy the arguments of the industry and the Bush administration that companies like Wyeth should be protected from such lawsuits in state courts if the products that caused the injury met federal regulatory standards?

The administration wants approval by the Food and Drug Administration to be the final word in these cases, not state laws like Vermont’s that often require the manufacturer to meet a higher standard in warning doctors and patients about potential dangers. The court should rule in favor of Ms. Levine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07fri1.html?th&emc=th

[midnight]

1. In every State the higher standard should prevail.....

I hope that this women receives more than she is asking for. This needs to be a turning point for the consumer.

[varkam]

2. Not to be a party pooper, but...

wouldn't the problem, then be the FDA? I mean, if a precedent is set that manufacturer's are to be held accountable to state laws, then there could potentially be fifty different standards that they will be held to account on. One of the reasons for the federal system in the first place is for a uniformity of laws and enforcement.

Just my .02.