Comments on: Wait, You Mean Drug Deale– Companies Aren’t Above The Law? Thanks SCOTUS http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/ A black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:32:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Paddle Brushhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-471622 Paddle Brush Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:29:49 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-471622 Oh!...that's great helpful, it's so right to me! Million thanks for the article, Oh!…that's great helpful, it's so right to me! Million thanks for the article,

]]> By: Paddle Brushhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-468541 Paddle Brush Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:20:34 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-468541 Great! Thank for information, I'm looking for it for a long time, Great! Thank for information, I'm looking for it for a long time,

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmaelhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-344141 mon_dieu_ishmael Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:33:40 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-344141 This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling - package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.<br>Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued. <br>If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?<br>This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a "clot buster" drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized - with each state having a different required information document? This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling – package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.
Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued.
If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?
This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a “clot buster” drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized – with each state having a different required information document?

]]> By: rikyrahhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-344142 rikyrah Thu, 05 Mar 2009 06:20:12 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-344142 EVENING THREAD IS UP EVENING THREAD IS UP

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmaelhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-160798 mon_dieu_ishmael Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:33:40 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-160798 This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling - package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.<br>Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued. <br>If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?<br>This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a "clot buster" drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized - with each state having a different required information document? This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling – package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.
Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued.
If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?
This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a “clot buster” drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized – with each state having a different required information document?

]]> By: mon_dieu_ishmaelhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-152629 mon_dieu_ishmael Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:33:40 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-152629 This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling - package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.<br>Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued. <br>If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?<br>This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a "clot buster" drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized - with each state having a different required information document? This is not a good decision by the Supreme Court. The person that injected the drug made a HUGE mistake and injected it into an artery instead of into a vein. The FDA approved labeling (the official and required labeling – package insert) warned NOT to inject in an artery. The drug company is only being sued because it has the deepest pockets.
Some injectable drugs can only be given IV, some IM, and others SubQ. A very few are for intrathecal use only. For example: If the health care person injects an IV only drug via the intramuscular route severe reactions can occur. Should the drug company be sued? NO. It is a case of medical malpractice and the person making the mistake should be sued.
If a nurse puts nose drops or ear drops into your eye by mistake and causes damage, should the drug compay be sued if the labeling is correct?
This decision also allows the each state to determine what warnings need to be given to the patients and to the health care practioners in writing. Almost all drugs have adverse effects, and some people cannot tolerate medications that 99.9% of the rest have no problems with. Imagine going into an ER with a massive clot blocking your coronary artery. The doctor wants to use a “clot buster” drug to open up the artery, but that drug can sometimes cause dangerous bleeding. Does the patient need to read a 10 to 20 page document listing all potential adverse reactions and then sign a consent, witnessed by a non hospital employee and notarized – with each state having a different required information document?

]]> By: rikyrahhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-152444 rikyrah Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:20:12 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-152444 EVENING THREAD IS UP EVENING THREAD IS UP

]]> By: cr8fhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-152374 cr8f Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:55:07 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-152374 What they did was always criminal. I've never seen a more fascist adm. here. What they did was always criminal. I've never seen a more fascist adm. here.

]]> By: spirit_55zhttp://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/comment-page-1/#comment-152292 spirit_55z Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:39:38 +0000 http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/03/wait-you-mean-drug-deale-companies-arent-above-the-law-thanks-scotus/#comment-152292 Good news, Jack. I heard about this case on the news this morning.<br><br>The Bush administration was straight up EVIL. There's no other term I can think to describe them. <br><br>The article states that in 2006 his admin. wrote in clauses totally ignoring the law for drug companies to cover their asses if the FDA approved the drugs. It's criminal.<br><br>The durg is "Phenergan," and as a practicing nurse, I can't begin to tell you how many injections of that drug I used to give.<br><br>We're finally taking steps to get these drug companies and the government agencies out of bed with each other. Good news, Jack. I heard about this case on the news this morning.

The Bush administration was straight up EVIL. There's no other term I can think to describe them.

The article states that in 2006 his admin. wrote in clauses totally ignoring the law for drug companies to cover their asses if the FDA approved the drugs. It's criminal.

The durg is “Phenergan,” and as a practicing nurse, I can't begin to tell you how many injections of that drug I used to give.

We're finally taking steps to get these drug companies and the government agencies out of bed with each other.

]]>