Originally published February 15 2006
Policy makers and trial lawyers complain that bird flu legislation protects drug manufacturers at the expense of patients' rights
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Jeffrey Levi, a policy advisor with the Trust for America's Health, voiced concerns about the liability language of bird flu preparedness legislation that is soon to be voted on in Congress, echoing the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, who have complained that the legislation affords broad legal protection to drug companies at the expense of patients' rights.
Bird flu preparedness legislation headed for a final vote in the Senate this week would create loopholes allowing vaccine makers to avoid legal liability even if a patient is harmed by negligence, critics said today.
of Trial Lawyers of America derided the legislation as a gift to the drug industry, but its supporters said the lawyers were acting in their own self-interest.
Nonetheless, a leading public health group also criticized the liability language.
The liability provisions are contained in a mammoth defense spending bill that would also provide $3.8 billion of President Bush's $7 billion request for pandemic preparedness.
"Washington Republicans tucked a huge Christmas present for the drug companies into the appropriations bill in the dead of night," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Los Angeles.
Backed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., the provision would allow the government to extend legal immunity to vaccine and drug makers by declaring a public health emergency.
Manufacturers of drugs designated to deal with the emergency would be shielded from lawsuits unless they had engaged in "willful misconduct."
Such a threshold is so high it would protect companies that were negligent or reckless, critics said.
Some critics said the language is broad enough it could allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to declare an emergency for any serious health problem facing the country, such as obesity or diabetes.
"The trial lawyers apparently would prefer to keep filing frivolous lawsuits and collecting excessive attorney fees rather than making sure public health is protected," she said.
Call said the drug industry had some input into the legislation, but was not totally pleased.
"The question is how high the liability shield needs to be," Tobias said.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml