Michigan Votes Forum

 How about we get rid of the FDA and allow all lawsuits against drug manufactures?  Loser pays costs.

 i like the 'loser pays' idea.

this bill sounds like another democrat power grab, trying to control another aspect of the judicial system to it's own ends.

 This bill brings fairness to the people who have been hurt, or family members of someone who dies from perscription drug side effects. Right now the medical cost from bad side effects treatment can bring a huge financial hardship to those families who have been hurt. The recent supreme court ruling throws out the theory that the FDA is responsible totally for the approved drugs. Michigan is the only state that offers almost total amunity to the drug makers. Please move this bill through the House and Senate.

Thanks

This bill holds the drug companies answerable for the damage their products may cause if they can be proven negligent in court. As much as they spend on advertising trying to sell their products, they should be able to pay damages when proven at fault.

 i wonder how much good an f.d.a. approval does if the drugs they approve are still hurting people? is our government making 'acceptable risk' decisions for us, and doesn't that make them partially liable for those damages brought on by the drugs they approve?

The FDA has been underfunded and understaffed, and their mission compromised, throughout the Bush years, as many government watchdog agencies have, in an effort to demonstrate the conservative belief that government doesn't work. Of course they should be held partially liable for damages caused by drugs they approved, just as the SEC should be held accountable for the Madoff scandal it ignored.That doesn't excuse drug makers, or Madoff, for putting people's lifes and treasures in jeopardy.

 so why was the ban on lawsuits passed with so many stalwart democrats defending our health care rights? why was the funding shorted with so many of the faithful in positions of power? where were the voices of the watchmen? where was the hue and cry of alarm?

with the proper oversight, even from the minority, these things shouldn't have happened, yet they did. perhaps those currently in power should hang their heads in shame as they vacate their seats for more honest and stalwart men.

Maybe you've been away somewhere for the last eight years, or maybe you have been getting your news from a not too reliable source, but there has been much hue and cry from those of us who didn't drink the cool-aide. If you care to notice, there is a D behind the name of the legislator who introduced this bill.

You guys make some real good points. People hurt by drug side effects either by taking the drug themselves and having bad side effects or by a family member are only asking for their day in court. At that time they will have to prove their case and if the drug company is found responsible the people hurt by the drug should be able to collect money for damages from the drug maker. The money can be used to help pay the cost of the treatment required from the side effect as well as other cost and losses. The drug makers are making huge profits selling the drug. I see no reason why they should`nt be held accountable for side effects proven in court caused by the drug. A lot of people are telling us the FDA is broke and underfunded. I think ethically people should be able to collect damages from drug companies as well as the FDA but don`t think anyone will be able to ever collect damages from the FDA. I think the FDA approves drugs for human use off the reports provided to them from by the drug makers. How can any of us ever know if the drug maker`s reports are completely accurate? The threat of a lawsuit adds another check and balance to help insure all the possible side effects are made known to patients as well as doctors. 

 there were lots of "d"s behind the names of the people who passed the law that you are opposing. where is the hue and cry for their heads?

not for nothing, where was this hue and cry eight years ago? or last year? why wait till now?

I think this bill is about the same bill as house bill 4044 that last year passed in the house, with a "D" majority, but hit a snag when it went to the senate. A few key Senators with a "R" behind their name and a majority in the Senate, would not let it out of comittee to be voted on, on the floor. I think if the 4044 bill were sent to the Senate floor to be voted on it would have passed. I think their argument was that once a drug is approved by the FDA Michigan residents could not sue in court for side effects unless they can prove fraud from the drug companies or they withheld evidence that would have caused the drug not be approved by the FDA. Last week the US Supreme Court said an approval from the FDA does not protect drug companies from being sued in state court. I think that ruling says the FDA does not have total responsibility for drug warning lables. This 4316 bill needs to passed to allow fairness to Michigan citizens.  

You make some good points as well, Jack.

 so you think it's okay to sue the drug companies for you taking a drug that a doctor prescribed to you? what about suing the doctor? oh... wait... you can't do that... the doctor doesn't have billions of dollars.

the state decided that drug companies could not be sued unless they committed fraud, or withheld evidence that would effect approval. the f.d.a. approval was the sign of our government's protection, and the state government took them at their word. so the real authority for passing all those drugs through is the f.d.a. unless you can prove that they knew of a problem with a drug and approved it anyway, you again have no grounds to sue. that bill was passed by democrats and republicans in both houses, and it's repeal will be impeded by republicans and democrats in both houses.

this bill would open the door to billions in lawsuits, whether the drug companies are at fault or not. but you don't care about that, do you? you only care about putting more companies out of business without holding the government watchdog responsible. 

I "get" what you are saying. I`ve heard the stories about drug makers moving out of Michigan if this bill passes, but I ask you where are they going? 49 states allow lawsuits against drug makers for side effects. Last year some jobs were moved out of south end of Michigan to a state that allows these lawsuits. If the current Michigan law is the life blood of the drug industry why arent the drug makers scrambling to move all their operations to Michigan? All this bill does is make Michigan equal with the rest of the country. Drugs in Michigan are not cheaper than they are in other states that allow lawsuits are they? You said we will see billions of lawsuits if this bill passes. How many people do you think live in Michigan? and how many have been hurt by side effects? The drug companies could save a lot of money if they quit spending a ton of money on lobbyist in Lansing. 

 49 states allow lawsuits, we don't. hmmm... good question, perhaps the drug companies promised to 'flock' to michigan if they lawsuit ban was passed, then they reneged on their promises. this bill will obviously not make drugs any cheaper, nor will it attract businesses to michigan. are there that many people in michigan suffering the side effects of drugs so terribly that they must sue to get relief? don't the doctors have a responsibility in this? no one seems to be struggling to get money from them, are they?

Just can't get your head around the idea of a lowly citizen having the right to hold a business responsible for their product, can you?

 i have no problem with that. your government does. it voted to hold f.d.a. approved drugs harmless unless fraud can be proven. it was their decision, not mine. i simply pointed out that several of your democrat fellow travellers, who, according to you, are only looking out for the good of the people, voted for it, and allowed it to pass through the legislature. you still refuse to hold them, and the people prescribing the drugs in question, responsible for any damages done by taking the drugs in the first place.

you also refuse to hold yourself responsible to educate yourself, to ask your doctor exactly what the risks are associated with those drugs, and perhaps decide for yourself what is the best course based on those risks. nothing is without risk, and government cannot insure you or protect you against all risks. if a patient suffers damage from a drug, you can bet it is not because the drug company lied to the f.d.a. about the drug. most likely it's because the patient didn't inform the doctor about all the factors involved in the treatment requiring the drugs use, or the doctor was guilty of malpractice. but only big business must pay.  

 Thank you for taking the time to reply. I very much respect your opinion as well as everyone elses opinion. We all have a right to our opinions. I have said before my main problem with the state Senate is not with anyone not supporting this legislation but a few republican Senators refusing to let this legislation out of comittee to be voted on the floor. I do not think this is a democratic or republican issue. All of our elected law makers in the State Senate should be allowed to vote and show their support for or against this issue. To me it seems wrong for the Majority Leader in the senate not to allow this issue to be voted on. To me this shows he is trying to make the decision for the entire Senate for personal motives. I read that in 1995 when this issue was made law some of the Law Makers did not understand what they voted for and did not intend to give the drug makers total ammunity from lawsuits. I may be wrong but sometimes I think our Law Makers don`t take the time to read and fully understand what they are voting for. One republican Senator told me he voted against making this law in 1995 for the reason we are talking about now. As far as holding doctors responsible there are some cases where they should be held responsible but in most cases I`m sure they don`t have much more information on the drug than the warnings from the drug makers and FDA. I also think doctors do get sued a lot. Thats why they tell us their malpratice insurance is so high. We are personally responsible for getting all the information on the drugs we can and make a decision based on that information, but we make those decision based on what side effects we are told about. The current law says the drug makers can be sued if we can prove fraud or they withheld information that would have caused this not to get FDA approval. Where can an average Joe get that information. I think the first case that went to the state supreme court a week or so ago and got a 4 to 4 vote allowing it to proceed in court. In way more than 10 years I think this is the first case allowed to proceed, but I could be wrong. 

 i guess this is all coming down to who do you trust? do you trust the same batch of politicians that passed the law you are trying to repeal now to 'see the error of their ways' and go against the way they voted the first time? do you trust them to actually read the laws they are passing? do you trust them to actually have your best interests at heart this time as opposed to last time?

do you trust the attorneys who are pushing for this law to pass? do you trust the people who say they are suffering side effects from approved drugs?

do you trust the ethics and morals of the people who voted to hold harmless the drug companies in the first place? before you go on, you have to decide who you trust, and act accordingly.

 I support this legislation.

I also very much support this legislation changing the law allowing lawsuits for perscription drug side effects like the other 49 states. Michigan residents should not be treated different than citizens from the rest of the country. We should have the same rights because being from Michigan does not make us 2nd. class citizens.

The drug industry should not be treated different than other companies that make other products. Lets say XYZ company makes air bags for cars. (not American cars because I know they make quality safe products) We all know about the financial problems all car makers are going through. We also know air bags save lives as do perscription drugs. Lets say XYZ company found if they use a thinner material they can save $8.00 per car by using this thinner material. Lets say a friend or family member was in an auto accident and the air bag failed. They were crippled and their treatment will cost their family thousands of dollars and they will not be able to work again. Should the maker of these air bags be granted ammunity from lawsuits or should they be held accountable? Remember they creat thousands of jobs and are hurting for money.  How is this any different than giving total ammunity for drug makers in Michigan?

 the only difference is that your legislature voted to give them immunity. maybe you should ask them why.

Reps. Meekhof, Haines and Hildenbrand, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Under current Michigan law, lawsuits against pharmaceutical drug makers are prohibited if the drug was deemed safe by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

I oppose this bill to change the law because it includes a provision making the change retroactive, which punishes law-abiding businesses for doing nothing more than following the law that the Legislature passed. Punishing someone for something that was legal at they time they did it is not only unfair, it will also set a chilling and dangerous precedent that will discourage job providers from investing in our state.

I am also concerned about what this change will do to the skyrocketing cost of health care. Pharmaceutical drugs undergo rigorous clinical testing and review by the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that medications are as safe as possible. But it is impossible to make a drug that is 100 percent safe. Ending the FDA defense would invite a flood of new lawsuits from personal injury lawyers interested solely in bilking drug companies - not protecting Michigan residents.

Prescription drugs are helping millions of people to enjoy healthier longer lives. But our ability to research and develop new drugs will be seriously diminished if we allow frivolous lawsuits against drug manufacturers, and the cost of life-saving medicine will rise.”

Rep. McMillin, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

One of the main reasons I oppose this bill to change the law is because it includes a provision making the change retroactive, which punishes law-abiding businesses for doing nothing more than following the law that the Legislature passed. Punishing someone for something that was legal at they time they did it is not only unfair, it will also set a chilling and dangerous precedent that will discourage job providers from investing in our state.”

On or about Sept 5 2008 my mother was given Levaquin.  With in a week she could barely walk due to weakness and pain in her legs.  She began having problems with her kidneys.  She died October 8 2008 one month later.  On November 14 2008 I was given Levaquin IV push immediately prior to minor arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn meniscus.  That very night I had problems sleeping, night terrors.  Having to urinate every 15 to 30 minutes.  With in 3 days the pain in both legs became unbearable,  I developed trigger thumb.  My knees felt like someone had hit both with a ball bat.  Ringing in my ears, floaters in my eyes.  Dizzy and very foggy mind. 

Called my surgeon who ignored the problem.  I told them I was sure it due to Levaquin.  HE said impossible with just one dose.  He obviously hadn't read either my chart prior to administering this drug nor had he read the BLACK BOX WARNING on this drug.  I could barely get up and down the stairs in my home.  This got steadily worse.  I called this Dr again and again was told no way was the Levaquin the problem.  Shortly after Christmas it hit me that my mother had many of the same symptoms I was having.  I had already done much research on the drug and discovered I had many many of the adverse reactions known by the drug company and the FDA. 

This drug was meant to be a last resort drug to stop infection not as a preventative drug and extreme caution and it is not recommended for those over 60 or with auto immune diseases.  I have arthritis and psoriasis, both of which are auto immune diseases. 

Evidently my mother must fall into the group known as acceptable risk for the good of others.  Now 4 1/2 months later I am still having to have PT tests after tests and constant Dr appointments trying to stop this damage.  I have severe tendonitis and must worry daily about ruptures to my Achillies tendons and also have been diagnosed with Erythromylalgia in my feet with the feet swelling daily feeling like they are on fire tingling and beet read all the time.  Can't stand to have shoes on for more than short periods.  Shopping is exhausting for more then very short periods. 

I deserve the right to sue for damages.  I am not able to do the thing I love most in life, landscaping at my home and working in the yard.  I can hardly stand to be on my feet long enough to do dishes or normal house work.

 you can and should sue the doctor. the makers of the drug did not tell the doctor to prescribe it to you. you list several warnings on the labelling, and in the information about the drug. your doctor knew, or should have known the danger.

 Many thanks to Rep. Lisa Brown for introducing this bill and all who supported this bill in the house. I also very much respect the opinion of our House Reps who voted against this bill. I hope our State Senators will have the courage to take up this bill and not allow one or two Senators to hold this bill up and not allow it to come to the floor to be voted on. Every Senator representing a group of citizens should have their opinion counted. Its not right for a couple Senators to try and make the decision for the entire Senate. I believe this bill will again make Michigan citizens equal with the rest of the other states.

The Supreme court ruled that the FDA is not totally responsible for drug side effects in its March 5th ruling. Michigan is the only state that allows the drug companies total ammunity from lawsuits. I know the argument saying Michigan citizens have a right to sue if they can prove the drug company lied or comitted fraud to get it approved and those actions would cause the FDA to withdraw its approval. I also know getting that information from the drug companies is next to impossible.

 I don`t understand the argument about this bill causing citizens in Michigan to loose jobs when Michigan is the only State that awards almost total ammunity. 49 States allow lawsuits so where are the drug companies going to move the jobs to? Everyone deserves their day in court where they would have to prove their case. Just allowing citizens the right to have their day in court does not mean they will win. It only makes them equal with citizens in the rest of the country and a chance to voice their concerns.

 Its wrong to offer a carrot to drug makers off the backs of citizens that have been hurt by their drug side effects. These people have been hurt enough. If you want to offer the drug makers a carrot to come to Michigan use tax insentives or get people educated and trained for the technical jobs the drug makers require. We have plenty of empty buildings in Michigan that we could give drug makers to get them to come to this state. Thats how you creat jobs not by taking away citizens rights. 

Kudos for halting the progress of this bill.  Given the scrutiny of FDA review, why would anyone consider that a jury of "peers" know more than the multitude of medical researchers, physicians and scientific professionals in a court?  I defy you to ask an average jury member to discuss the pharmacogenomic issues surrounding the reasons one patient out a 1000 might experience an adverse event.  It is tragic when a person has sustains damage from a drug or procedure, but just adding more cases to our over-burdened courts does not change that outcome.  Added funding for research and continuing training of prescribers, along with improved patient education reduces the chances of these tragic events.  Just opening up more lawsuits is an uneducated, short-sighted, politically-motivated move that does NOTHING to promote jobs or improve our economy. 

 kmassey, just curious, do you live in Michigan or a different state that allows these lawsuits? 

 Jack C - Current and Native Michigander, and proud of it.

kmassey,

It looks like Cropseys motion was voted on along party lines. The republicans control the Senate until the next election. Thats is when things will change.   

 I`m not sure why Mr. Cropsey wants to ditch this bill as he did the 4044 bill last year. I had and still have a lot of respect for Mr. Cropsey and his values. When the drug maker lawsuit ammunity was made law in 1995 I think Mr. Cropsey stood against the bill and Mr. Engler. He was one of the few republicans voting his values not his parties lead. I am very disapointed with Ms. Granholm and Mr Cherry who wants Granholms job for not standing up for this bill. They seem to be silent at least from what I (a nobody) can see.

Unfortunately, Senator Cropsey has tagged himself as a major obstructionist in preventing legislation that really would benefit the people of Michigan from passing.  Unfortunately, Senator Cropsey also is the face of today's Republican Party in Michigan.    

This bill should become law, but until we exercise the real term limit power of the people -- the vote -- to oust legislators like Senator Cropsey and his ilk we are doomed for more of the same.   

 Your right, I don`t know what changed to make Mr Cropsey work hard to beat this bill. Maybe the drug comapnies have been pouring money in to get this bill beat has worked. I know money changes people. I thought our lawmakers were in office to work for all the citizens even the ones that are sick and hurt by drug side effects having to spend a lot of their own money for treatment, not just the ones with deep pockets. They want us to believe that if this bill would pass and make Michigan equal with the other 49 states jobs would fly out of the state. Where do they think the drug makers would move the jobs? Every other state allows these lawsuits. Maybe they think by not allowing this bill to be voted on the floor they can tell the voters in their district they never voted against this bill when they run for re-election. Maybe they think we are stupid and will forget.

Senators Whitmer, Gleason, Cherry and Jacobs, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the motion to postpone until June 2 the motion to discharge the Committee on Government Operations and Reform from further consideration of House Bill Nos. 4316, 4317, and 4318 and moved that the statements they made during this discussion of the motion be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Whitmer’s statement is as follows:

I rise to speak against postponement whether it is January 2nd or June 2nd. Time is of the essence, and the time to act is now. I am speaking against further delay on these most important bills. I’m speaking against delay tactics; I’m speaking against the continued cowardice of not taking a vote now.

The time is now. I vote that we take action today. I vote that we take action for victims’ rights. Too long have we treated our citizens as second-class citizens. When a harmful drug kills our people, too long have we put drug company profits and illusory promises of jobs before actual victimization of our people. It is time to act, and I implore you to do the right thing to protect the consumers of the state of Michigan and take a vote today. That is what we have been elected to do—to protect the people of our state. If we were not elected to do that, what were we elected to do? To postpone tough decisions? I think not.

I ask that we not postpone these bills and that we take action today. That is what the people of Michigan deserve. That is what they are demanding we do. That is why I rise to oppose postponing these important bills.

Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:

June 2nd—it is a lovely month and a lovely day, but it is just another number to pause justice for Michigan citizens who have been harmed. Once again, we are not offering a recommendation for exceptions. I am speaking today again about including the third, and sometimes the most important, branch of government, the judicial branch.

We can move this back six weeks, but we can’t move back the pain and suffering and the unexpected consequences of harmful drugs on the market. Only a few days ago, the Senator from Saginaw said that many states have this similar law. I don’t think that was a wholly accurate remark. By postponing the effort that we should be undertaking today, we are offering further excuses and unfamiliar examples to pause judicial relief for Michigan citizens.

The highest responsibility we have as Senators of this great state is the public health and welfare of our citizens. When we just unilaterally deny them access to the local courts and we say, yes, June 2nd is a fine date to postpone this to, I would hope that there is an altruistic measure in this: That those who say lets’ pause until June 2nd will actually give us this vote that we have asked for nearly six years.

If we have an assurance that we will vote on this issue on June 2nd, I wouldn’t like to, but I could support the pause again of this important legislation. But somehow I don’t believe that we are going to be given that right to vote on June 2nd. I think it is going to be like April 2nd that just went by, and I think it is going to be like February 2nd that just went by. If we can get a responsible measure by those who would like to pause this legislation and say we will give you that vote on June 2nd, then I could say I’ll join you, but I think this is just another example of what we utilize this bill for.

Let’s do what we were elected to do. There is not a single member of this Senate who, if they had a family member who was harmed, if they themselves were harmed by a drug, would say let’s put this off for six weeks. Let’s take care of our state’s business. There is a reason why 49 other states don’t incorporate this as a hindrance to their local courts. Let’s do the right thing and vote on this today because we know darn well that we aren’t going to be able to vote on it on June 2nd.

Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:

I rise to oppose the postponement of consideration of these bills to June 2nd. As I heard from the Majority Floor Leader his belief that we can’t do this now because, first of all, we are playing politics, I have never known dealing with people’s health, safety, and livelihood that that is an issue of politics. It never has been and nor should it be.

Secondly, we do have very serious problems in this state. The budget, of course is one, and there are people working on that now. We are able in this body to do more than one thing at a time.

That is why people elected us. They elected us to solve the problems of this state, and this is one of those problems.

We should not continue to postpone it because postponing is really an issue of politics.

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:

I actually wasn’t planning on speaking to this. I guess I am very moved by the Senator from the 32nd District’s floor speech just now. Yes, indeed, we have not heard from all of those organizations, all of those interest groups, all of the lobbyists who are getting paid handsomely for their ability to have their voices heard. Who we have heard from are the very people in our districts who want us to deal with this—the very people whom we all represent who often can’t afford to pay a lobbyist to make their positions known.

Let us stand up for the people in our districts who want this. I vehemently oppose the postponement of these calendar items.

The Republican party again comes to the defense of big business, at the expense of the people and their rights.