Why don't Prescription Drugs have Good Side Effects?
Every drug commercials starts with all of the "possible" benefits of drugs for about 20 seconds before proceeding to list "possible" side effects for what seems like an hour. Why do the side effects always have to be negative? If you want to sell me on a drug, give it some great side effects.
I'd take anything for my ailment if it came with side effects like excessive happiness, greater strength, energy, sight, hearing, and athleticism. It wouldn't hurt me if it made me more youthful, upbeat, attractive, smarter, and charming. How about spicing up the world a little bit? What about deterring insects, preventing sunburn, making every day one of endless sunshine and summer? To complete my side-effect fantasy, why not turn dissenting voices into sweet music to my ears.
Like every fantasy bubble, reality bursts the dream and slaps you in the face. No, the true side effects leave you with a couple of extra toes, a horn, organ failure, cancer, and in some cases death. The only one's really living the dream from side effects are the vulture, ambulance chasing lawyers. There are currently lawsuits against Effexor, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, and LexaPro. While you suffer serious health problems, the lawyers offer you pennies on the dollar while they pocket a fortune. Money is their drug of choice.
On the flip side of the lawsuit windfall for attorneys, drug companies recently gained immunity from lawsuits for generic drugs. A June 24, 2013, Supreme Court ruling effectively eliminates manufacturer liability in injury cases resulting from negative side effects. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court recently overturned a $21 million judgment awarded to a New Hampshire woman injured by a generic pain drug, declaring in the process that generic drug manufacturers cannot be sued when the drugs they produce injure patients.
The Supreme Court ruled, since generic drugs are mere replicas of brand-name drugs that, at one time, were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as “safe,” generic drug manufacturers are exempt from being held liable in the event of injuries caused by harmful side effects. Yes, they are getting immunity from suit even if they knowingly sell you drugs that cause you health problems, even if they are aware of it.
If you take the time to read the side effects of prescription drugs, you will see that the very thing you are taking it for, may also be a side effect. For example, Paxil is used to treat depression, but one of its side effects is suicide. Even worse, is getting effects worse than the ailment being treated. For instance, Celebrix is used to treat arthritis, with possible side effects of heart attack and stroke. I think I would stick with the arthritis.
If the FDA says something is safe, it doesn't matter if the pharmaceutical companies lied, committed fraud, or deceived the FDA. Hell, it doesn't even matter if the FDA made a bad decision. Forget about suing the FDA for being wrong because they have protection against even the possibility of suit via "immunity." Even if they cost millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives, they can't be touched.
The Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over facts, real victims, and any adverse reactions.
Immediately upon the Supreme Court's ruling, drug manufacturers and investors celebrated. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects and are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.
"Today's court decision provides a disincentive for generic makers of drugs to monitor safety of their products and to make sure that they have a surveillance system in place to detect adverse events that pose a threat to patients," Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group told Reuters.
I can already see the next scandal unfolding. "FDA officials accused of taking bribes from pharmaceutical giants." It seems inevitable, because once a drug has FDA approval, rightly or wrongly, the company has immunity from any future liability. Sure, right now, it is only for generic drugs, but the ruling has larger implications for new judgments. If the FDA has the ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals, that includes initial approvals. Take prescription drugs if you must, but be aware, your rights to reparation just got a major fleecing.
Sadly, one more side effect of the drug is that it may (and always does) cause the drug companies and their investors to become sinfully rich.