Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Justices Cutting the Legs From Under 'Standing'

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


Become a Fan
  (3 fans)

The Supreme Court recently ruled that manufacturers of medical devices cannot be sued for injuries or deaths they cause if the Food and Drug Administration has approved them. A 2001 ruling bars suits even when a company has defrauded the F.D.A. Now, the Court is poised to rule on whether Americans can sue drug companies when their products have maimed or killed people. For the general public's right to 'standing', the future looks very bleak.

The Government claims the F.D.A. is competent enough to oversee the drug and device markets, and courts should not be "second-guessing" the agency. A majority of Justices seems to agree. Both the Government and the Court are dangerously mistaken. The Government Accountability Office and the F.D.A.'s own science board have released reports saying the agency is "incapable" of protecting America from unsafe medical devices, drugs, and even food.

To deny standing to those hurt by medical products just because there happens to be an agency that oversees the industry would be the same as denying standing to residents of communities poisoned by toxic waste released into their water supply because the company responsible for the pollution is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency. It's the same as denying standing to people killed by defective electrical systems in vehicles because the industry is overseen by the Department of Transportation, or those killed in plane crashes because we have an F.A.A.

Should parents be prevented from suing a daycare center for child abuse because it passed inspection by the Department of Human Services? Are injured patients to be barred from filing malpractice suits merely because their doctor was considered competent enough to obtain a medical license? If hundreds of people are injured by a specific make of firearm because of a structural flaw, should their cases be summarilly dismissed because the overall design was approved by the Federal Firearms Administration?

Many products and services of every kind have been approved by one regulatory agency or another, only to be found defective or unsafe long after they were deemed harmless. The F.D.A. at one time appoved silicon breast implants, DDT, and cigarettes. Just in the past ten tears, at least 12 drugs initially approved by the F.D.A. have been pulled off the market after being found unsafe - and only after scores of people were harmed by them. Other products such as lead paint, asbestos, and mercury have been initially labeled as "safe" by our omnipotent bureacracies, and many men, women, and children have paid for that kind of "oversight" with their lives and health.

Congress should undo these ridiculous Supreme Court rulings with legislation that returns to the public the standing it has always had to seek justice in the courts against careless or unprincipled manufacturers of products that harm them. But if the Government wants to say that regulatory agencies are so competent that they, alone, can decide what is or isn't dangerous, then the agencies themselves should be ready and willing to accept full responsibility for the decisions they make. All lawsuits for every product or service they approve should be brought directly against the approving agency, and standing should be granted to anyone who has suffered from their dangerous arrogance.

Somehow, I don't think that's what the nine folks sitting on the High Court have in mind.

By JC Garrett


JC Garrett is a freelance writer and Constitutional scholar from the piney-woods of East Texas. Mr. Garrett owns and operates an independent recording studio, plays several instruments, writes, sings, and produces music. His stories have (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Let Loose the Dogs of War

Need Extra Income? Sell Your Teeth!

Condi's Cognitive Dissonance

When your family believes false Obama rumors like 'Infanticide'

World's Most Efficient Solar Collector

The Joe Biden Gaffe Prevention System


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

why not trust the pharma industrial complex. aren&... by Wolfie on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:07:54 AM
Thank you for posting this. The government is owne... by Barbara Peterson on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:29:19 PM
The FDA now has no credibility if you look at some... by Zena Princess on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:13:14 PM
Yes, their entire mission is to destroy the govern... by JC Garrett on Monday, Apr 21, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM