It's true. THOUSANDS of medical breakthru's have occurred. Cures. Disease killers. BUT the makers of these drugs refuse to even attempt to get them approved and marketed. Because, as with every drug, there are side effects. One person out of a million will have an adverse side effect...and a lawsuit will result. The monetary damages from one suit eat up the costs of making said drug.

It's a very sad situation.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Liberalism KILLS.

Raven --

And the left tries to tell us they only have the "best interests" of America at heart. This is yet another example of their true agenda.

Ogre --

Amen to that!

Perpetuating the effects of these litigious giants (sarcasm there) is the fact that many (too many) become sitting judges. Anyone see a problem here?

Whatever happened to the GOP and torte reform? I guess it went the same way as the GOP and fiscal responsibility and small government.

Old Soldier --

Therein lies my biggest gripe with my own political party -- our politicians "compromise" in all the wrong places.

It seems like a self-confidence issue: They're afraid to put up any kind of fight, like they're afraid they might lose and don't want to appear as losers, so they simply let the left walk away with the prize without having to work for it.

Liberals don't love America. It's that simple for me.

What liberals want is their version of utopia [All utopias are bullshit!], and they'll squash and/or silence any who get in the way of their perverted dream.

AOW --

I concur 500%!

Our resident liberals are living in the wrong country, if they want the kind of government they would apparently be comfortable with, they need only head north to Canada or cross the Atlantic to the land of surrender and cognac.

Although it may well be likely in terms of their individual politics that product ligigation lawyers are predominantly liberals (as evidenced by the political donation records of trial lawyer groups), it's not clear to me that their litigation activity is the consequence of liberal politics per se. Rather, these folks are just being businessman (albeit an often sleasy business) and taking advantage of the laws to make a profit from their business enterprise, which in their case consists of filing product liabiilty lawsuits.

All sorts of lawyers earn their living by taking advantage of the laws which either they and/or their clients have had a hand in making. There's nothing intrinsically liberal or conservative in those forms of enterprises.

And if these lawyers have taken advantage of the court system and been allowed to pursue unreasonable arguments, as evident from examples you've listed above, that is the problem of the court system and judges, not the legislature (unless of course it is the legislature that allows these arguments to be made).

And if these lqwyers are able to prevail by making arguments to juries that somebody must pay if someone is hurt, even if that "somebody" is not responsible, or by appealing to the prejudices of the jury, etc. -- appealing to the precepts of modern liberalism -- then it is the jurors whose liberalism is to blame here (or a cowardly judge who will not follow the law).

However, you do have a good point regarding product liability legislation in regards to the role that government has taken and the negative impacts that modern liberalism in this arena has had on business innovation and on the release of worthwhile (and sometimes lifesaving) products.

And in particular, by creating business liability of harm caused by the users own negligance or operating that any harm has to be compensated by the business, legislators can be faulted for succumbing to the allures of an unhealthy liberalism.

On the other hand, at times businesses do succumb to the allure of immoral aquisition of profits and have clearly released products they knew were dangerous without disclosing their knowledge (or even fraudulently withheld negative information), or they have not reasonably tested their products in the rush to market. In that case, harmed individuals are entitled to some recompense. It also could reasonably be argued that the business should suffer sanction (although the current system of jackpot verdicts is not an effective or even moral system for achieving that end).

So the question I would raise is if we laudably wish to reduce the role of government interference in this area of product liability, what alternative mechanism (ruling out vigilante action) could preserve the benefits to society (and deserved profits to business) of new products while still providing redress to those truly wronged, in light of the realities of financial resources, time, and knowledge.

Civil Truth --

If a company puts a product out on the market that has some dangerous defect and someone is injured, I say, "Go for it!"

As far as pharmaceuticals go, drug companies absorb so many law suits that they've come to naming every single side effect known to man in the inevitably long warning paragraph, and always tell you to "check with your doctor" before taking them (that's pretty redundant, actually -- your doctor's the one who has to write you the prescription, and, unlike the pharmaceutical company, your doctor is the professional who has access to your medical history). Drug companies spend megabucks defending themselves both before and after the fact, and for some reason, thanks to some liberal campaign or other are now always treated as "the villain of the piece", like tobacco companies.

The problem is not so much that people can sue companies for legitimate reasons -- I mean, if I bought a new lawnmower and the first time I used it it exploded and I caught some shrapnel or got burned, and it turned out that mine was a far from isolated incident with that product, I'd probably want a piece of their ass, so to speak.

The problem is that this type of attorney tends to push the envelope too far, and each time someone does that, a new precedent is set that other lawyers can use as a reference in shaping related cases. They've turned frivolous and groundless lawsuits into a cottage industry that costs legitimate businesses big bucks. Most of this type of lawyer are liberals. All of these people are parasites cut from the same bolt of cloth as the ACLU and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The way most of them earn their livings is a pure mockery of our court system.

You are right, it's not a matter for Congress to decide, it's a matter for private sector litigation in court, as it should be, and what dem lawyizz does is legal.

Look at all those lawyers who advertise on TV, "If you've ever worked in the asbestos industry..." or whatever. They don't even bother chasing ambulances anymore, there are bigger fish to fry. Now they're even specializing in sueing specific industries.

A particular favorite is the large corporation that naturally has legal actions going all the time -- rather than getting tied up in quixotic after-the-fact investigations and then be tied up in court over it they'll negotiate a settlement. A lot of frivolous cases settle out of court, and companies rip themselves off by paying off.

While we can't legally forbid these folks from doing what they do, perhaps we can put pressure where it is needed, via emails, phone calls and letters, to try and get more responsible people appointed as judges.

If the vigilante option is ever executed, it should be pointed at the lawyers.

:-)