Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Supreme Court: Imported Drugs Safe and Effective as Those Manufactured in the US

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 09:33 PM
Original message
U.S. Supreme Court: Imported Drugs Safe and Effective as Those Manufactured in the US
What? You didn’t see this landmark decision today in your paper? That’s because you did not look closely enough.

The state of Arizona was just allowed to execute a prisoner with sodiumthiopental imported from Great Britain . Sodiumthiopental is used to sedate the condemned, before he is given the drugs that will kill him. Arizona argued that the imported drug is every bit as effective as the domestic drug which has been approved by the FDA. The Supreme Court agreed and ok’d the medical procedure using the British import.

http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=1459626

Sodiumthiopental is the first drug in the so called “three drug cocktail” used to kill folks in our prisons. Sodiumthiopental is a quick acting barbiturate which renders the victim unconscious so that he does not suffer through the next two steps. Pancuronium (Pavulon) is drug number two. It is a muscle relaxer, however it has no anesthetic or sedative effect. Given alone, it would paralyze the victim, so that he could not move or otherwise indicate that he is alert and in pain or distress. It’s purpose is to make sure that those invited to witness lethal injections will not be distrubed by the condemned’s deaths throes. An injection of potassium chloride is what actually causes the heart to stop.

If the condemned were given only pancuronium and then potassium chloride, he would be unable to move or indicate that he was suffering unbearable agony during the time it takes for brain death to occur once the heart is stopped. Brain death does not start for 4 to 6 minutes and is not complete for about 10 minutes. A bullet in the brain would be more humane.

In allowing the Arizona execution the Supreme Court indicated either 1) it does not give a flying fuck how inhumane or cruel executions in the U.S. are or 2) that imported drugs are every bit as safe and effective as those manufactured and sold in the U.S.---often at a much higher price than the same drugs sold in other countries.

Up until now, the FDA---which has a revolving employment policy with the pharmaceutical industry---and Congress---which gets a lot of money from Big Pharm have insisted that the drugs used in Canada and Europe are not good enough for Americans. They claim that they are protecting us when they interfere with our ability to buy medications at a reduced cost from other countries.

This Supreme Court decision ought to provide fresh ammunition to those who do not think Granny should have to choose between controlling her blood pressure and eating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
1. Great Analysis!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. the brits are none to happy about this...
there`s no death penalty great britain and they want to know what company sold this to arizona.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Divine Discontent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
4. good rational point. thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. oh yes.... a big...


to you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. I have less of a problem with the death penalty than I do with
judges making medical decisions. And I have serious issues with the death penalty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. PLEASE let's not misstate what the Supremes decide.
Edited on Thu Oct-28-10 11:20 PM by elleng
'The Supreme Court once again split 5-4 on an important death penalty case on Monday, with a majority of conservative justices rejecting an Arizona killer's claims his legal team did not do enough to keep him off death row.

Jeffrey Landrigan refused to allow his attorneys to present "mitigating evidence" at sentencing that could have spared him lethal injection. He later claimed on appeal that his legal team should have realized he was not mentally capable to make such decisions. . .

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion.'

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-05-14/justice/scotus.death_1_death-penalty-mitigation-evidence-sentencing?_s=PM:LAW

Looking for decision itself.

NYT Editorial, No Justification

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/opinion/29fri1.html

Facts of Murder conviction, 1989 murder, 2007 conviction affirmed:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1575

Second 'case,' about execution, Elena Kagan Supreme Court Justice Decides to Let Landrigan Live.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/elena-kagan-supreme-court-justice-decides-let-landrigan-live

Tuesday's order:

The application to vacate the order by the district court granting a temporary restraining order, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, is granted. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe. The district court granted the restraining order because it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm. See Order Granting Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in Landrigan v. Brewer, No. CV–10–02246–PHX–ROS (D Ariz.), Doc. 21, p. 15 (“he Court is left to speculate. . .whether the non-FDA approved drug will cause pain and suffering.”). But speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is “‘sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering.’” Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, 50 (2008) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 33 (1993)).
There was no showing that the drug was unlawfully obtained, nor was there an offer of proof to that effect. The motion to file documents under seal is denied as moot.

Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application to vacate the order granting a temporary restraining order.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/10/26/231844/01









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. "No evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe"
See? That is the new legal standard as set by the Supreme Court. Rather than having to petition the FDA to prove thata drug is safe and effective enough to be sold in the U.S. now all you have to do is show that there is no evidence that it is unsafe.

I rest my case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-28-10 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. 'Evidence in the record' is NOT a new legal standard for courts to make decisions,
its the STANDARD. Its NOT related specifically to drugs, its related to the facts of this case.

Arizona sure as hell should have presented evidence, but it did not do so; hence there was NO evidence in the record.

Case has nothing to do with whether the drug is safe enough to be sold in the U.S. 'No evidence in the record' to show it was unsafe for use in this sorry case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rasputin1952 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. On average, from the time the condemned was placed on a skid...
Edited on Fri Oct-29-10 05:54 AM by rasputin1952
pushed to halter around neck and blade dropped to behead the condemned by guillotine took less than 30 seconds....for God's sake that's more humane!

End the DP NOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-29-10 07:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. My wife and I have been getting our (expensive) drugs from Canada............
..............for over 10 yrs and we NEVER had any problems. Canada in turn gets them from ALL around the world. Just another reason how fucked up this country is, free market my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC