Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix.

Amalea Smirniotopoulos
{"title":"Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix.","authors":"Amalea Smirniotopoulos","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.</p>","PeriodicalId":80302,"journal":{"name":"Review of law and social change. New York University","volume":"35 4","pages":"793-862"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of law and social change. New York University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
坏药:处方药,先发制人,和潜在的无过错修复。
几十年来,联邦对药品和医疗器械的监管与各州的侵权索赔携手合作,以保护美国公众的健康和安全。现在,一种抢占的新趋势危及了这一计划。近年来,最高法院越来越尊重行政机关关于其优先购买权的主张,并在越来越多的案件中发现了优先购买权。在这一过程中,最高法院优先考虑了医疗器械伤害索赔,并将药品损害索赔置于不稳定的地位。取消针对药物和器械危害的普通法索赔将给FDA的监管计划留下漏洞,危及美国人的健康和安全。它还将阻止普通美国人为他们的伤害寻求赔偿——即使是那些由制造商渎职造成的伤害。本文建议国会为药品和医疗器械制定一个无过错赔偿计划,以弥补这些差距。这样的方案既可行,又在政治上可行,既能满足制造商、侵权改革家、患者和原告律师的要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix. Cloning and the LGBTI family: cautious optimism. Lesbians and abortion. Is the right to health a necessary precondition for gender equality? Chalimony: seeking equity between parents of children with disabilities and chronic illnesses.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1