Tort reform. Little original content.

[jazzfish]

Scare tactics [by way of the incomparable Rivka ages ago] is probably the best of the articles I've found; it's got a decent chunk of linkery going on as well. One of those links goes to the Snopes page on tortuous torts, which itself contains a link to a description of the much-touted McDonalds coffee case.

On the medical side, rain_luong's got a Bob Herbert editorial from June, Sadly, No! pokes holes in Judson Cox, and Jesse "No Relation" Taylor of Pandagon does the same to today's Moonie Times article. And of course lots of doctors who have problems with malpractice insurance aren't the most reliable practitioners of medicine. To quote Kevin Drum again, "maybe ambulance chasing lawyers aren't the biggest cause of malpractice suits after all. Maybe malpractice is. Just sayin." Update: and, in a striking case of finding my own bloody links instead of scraping them from other people's blogs, the Charleston Gazette ran an interesting series of articles on malpractice back in early 2001.

Which isn't to say that there aren't frivolous lawsuits. I seem to recall Fox News launching one against Al Franken last summer. But, like the Fox News lawsuit, or the case of the kid who tried to get a Harrier jet out of Pepsi, most of these cases are dismissed quickly.

The first person to use the words jacuzzi cases will be treated in the same fashion as the first person to say first and fourth most liberal senators or voted against the $87 billion to fund troops in Iraq [follow the link, then do a find-in-page for 87 billion] in my presence. I'll even say "please" and "thank you."

Comments

Drug Patents

[jonny-law.livejournal.com]

I only understand the process from the technical side, not the legal side, but from what I understand the patent is filed as soon as the high-throughput screening identifies a compound that causes the desired effect. A few years are spent designing a synthesis, and hopefully one that is amenable to industrial-scale production. It then goes through years of safety and efficacy testing, all while under patent, and then finally emerges on the market for sale. Thus, the "17 years" are not from entering the market place, but from discovery of a target compound. The time put in figure out how to make the drug and then test it all count against the patent.

An analogy would be if a book's copyright lasted around 5-10 years, and was filed when the author started writing the book instead of being published. Thus, time at the editors, or time when the publisher sits on the book for a better release date counts against the time that the author will be collecting royalties. Or for films, 5 years from the time that someone has optioned a script.

If you wonder why drugs are so expensive, look at why books, music, and movies are so cheap.