seems we need some real logic with the supreme court. As we know the SC allowed shielding of medical companies from lawsuits if the FDA approves a device. and they are looking to do the same with the drug companies. Do you trust the government to test drugs and medical devices?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/wa...html?th&emc=thQUOTE
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the fundamental question in the cases was who should make the decisions that will determine whether a drug is “on balance, going to save people or, on balance, going to hurt people?”
“An expert agency on the one hand or 12 people pulled randomly for a jury role who see before them only the people whom the drug hurt and don’t see those who need the drug to cure them?” Justice Breyer asked.
then in the article it says
QUOTE
The government argues that the F.D.A. competently oversees the drug and device markets, and should not be second-guessed by courts. But the Institute of Medicine, the Government Accountability Office and the F.D.A.’s own science board have all issued reports saying poor management and scientific inadequacies make the agency incapable of protecting the country against unsafe drugs, medical devices and food.
do you see the ignorance of the SC logic. Here they argue that the FDA should be the decider because they have expertise vs the lay person. Then as pointed out the institute of medicine and GAO both experts in their fields say it should not be so because the FDA does not have the expertise and man power. So it can be argued the supreme court is in essence a bunch commoners/lay people when it comes to medicine is saying they know better than the experts.
Question for the debate.
Should lay people be determining issues of fact? Is the SC correct? Do you trust the government to properly test/approve medical devices and drugs? and why?