 |
|
|
|
« Back to Opinion & Analysis
Who Does Tort Reform Protect?
Editorial for the Houston Community Newspaper
Steven F. Hotze, M.D.
July 17, 2008
When Ronald Reagan first appeared on the national scene, the mainstream Republican establishment opposed him. Reagan advocated free enterprise, limited government, and tax cuts. He viewed government as the problem not the solution. The corporate interests that dominated the political arena and opposed small businesses did not want Reagan and his conservative movement to upset the cozy relationship which the large corporations had developed with government.
Today, the Republican Party has squandered the legacy of Reagan and has allowed itself to once again become identified with corporate interests rather than small business and the common man. It is viewed as the party of Wall Street.
The tort reform movement provides an example of how many Republicans kowtow to corporate interests to the detriment of the individual.
A tort is a civil wrong which causes an injury for which an individual may receive a legal remedy. If you are injured in a car accident because of the negligence of another driver, then you have the legal right to be compensated for the damages which you incurred. Likewise, if you are injured by a company's defective product, then you have the legal right to be compensated for your damages. If the company knew the product was defective but continued to sell it anyway, then you may seek additional punitive damages which punish the company for its outrageous behavior.
Corporations desire to limit their liabilities so that they will not be required to pay in full for damages which they may have negligently or purposely caused. This is accomplished by passing legislation to limit the amount of compensation for damages which an individual may receive in a lawsuit. The purpose of tort reform is to protect large corporations, like insurance and pharmaceutical companies, from legitimate claims made against them by individuals like you.
GlaxoSmithKline, a pharmaceutical company, created and patented the antidepressant Paxil which received FDA approval in 1992. GlaxoSmithKline manipulated data on the drug studies which it presented to the FDA, hiding an increased suicide rate among users. It was sued for consumer fraud by the State of New York in 2004 and agreed to a settlement because it had falsely marketed Paxil as being safe for adolescents.
Medical studies revealed that the suicide rate in teenagers taking Paxil was four times greater than those taking a placebo. Increased suicide rates also occurred for the antidepressants made by the other drug companies. Although this had been reported in the medical literature for over a decade, it was not until 2004 that the FDA required that antidepressants carry a black label warning about the increased risk of suicide.
The drug companies were aware of the dangers posed by the antidepressants but continued to market them, hiding the side effects from the doctors and consumers. How many families have lost a loved one to suicide caused by the side effect of an antidepressant?
Drug companies and corporations should be held fully liable for negligent and unethical actions instead of being protected by tort reform.
About Conservative Republicans of Texas
Steven F. Hotze, M.D. is president of Conservative Republicans of Texas and founder of Hotze Health & Wellness Center in Houston, Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
