Week 6 Discussion Board Peer Responses
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Seton Hall University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6008
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by jadamarie123
Week 6 Discussion Board Peer Responses
Discussion Board Question 1 Ciera, I agree that the standard in the third Restatement of Torts is not appropriate because it only favors the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical manufacturing companies seem to use this standard as a negligent loophole to avoid their responsibility to the consumers. These companies rely too heavily on healthcare providers to point out their product’s risks. However, this should not be the healthcare providers’ responsibility. It is unfair to place this burden on healthcare providers. The pharmaceutical company who makes the medical product should be expected to answer for any harm that it causes to the consumers. You explained the difference between the two standards very well. The alternative standard is much more appropriate to address these concerns and protect consumer rights. I think we can both agree that pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable. The consumer’s safety should be the main priority here. Great discussion post, your stance and reasoning was clear. Gennifer, Nice discussion post this week. Your stance that the third Restatement of Torts standard is appropriate was pretty interesting. While it is true that negligence needs to be proven by the plaintiff, I think that this
standard makes it too hard for plaintiffs to argue against a design defect. This is an unfair burden placed on the plaintiffs. I also think that the “unavoidably unsafe” argument is limited. Although a drug may be beneficial for a number of consumers this should not eliminate the pharmaceutical company’s responsibility to ensure the safety of all consumers. I think the third Restatement of Torts standard prioritizes market availability over consumer safety. I personally find this to be very negligent. Pharmaceutical companies should be held more accountable in this aspect by leaning towards the provided alternative standard. Despite my personal opinion on the product liability topic, I think you made a strong argument here.
Discussion Board Question 2
Matthew, I enjoyed reading your discussion post, you made a clear argument. Your stance to reject the learned intermediary doctrine in cases with direct-to-consumer marketing is understandable. However, I disagree
that the intermediary doctrine should be retained in most tort cases. I do not think that heavily relying on healthcare professionals to relay product risk information is in the best interests of the consumer/patient. The learned intermediary doctrine does not guarantee that the communication between the manufacturing companies and the healthcare providers is flawless. I personally think that the learned intermediary doctrine should be rejected in all aspects. Instead, I believe that the consumers
should be able to receive information from both the manufacturer and their primary physician. I believe this will balance the burden for all parties involved. The consumer will be able to make informed decisions concerning their health by being informed from two credible sources rather than one.
Shakira, I respect your opinion that the learned intermediary doctrine should be retained in most cases but rejected in others. However, I disagree with your point that a rejection of the learned intermediary doctrine would discourage pharmaceutical manufacturing companies from pursuing more advanced drug treatments or medical products. Considering the fact that there will always be an associated risk of getting sued in the pharmaceutical industry regardless, I do not think that these companies will be discouraged without this specific doctrine. I do agree that healthcare professionals are the best people to communicate the medical risks of any product to the consumers. However, I believe that pharma companies often abuse this doctrine so that they do not have to assume as much responsibility within this line of communication. This creates a burden on the healthcare professionals. I recommend that the physicians and pharma companies are both involved to communicate to consumers together rather than using the learned intermediary doctrine.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help