substituting the FDA was (Re: [extropy-chat] Professor Being Sued etc)

[Brett Paatsch]

Brent Neal wrote:

> (6/22/05 10:42) Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>Ultimately I think all intelligent people to be successful in a 
>>competitive
>>world do need to know the law reasonably well. Even scientists
>>and technologists are well advised to go slum it in the humanities
>>occassionally because the humanities or inhumanities will cause them
>>untold or told amounts of grief if they do not.
>
>
> This is absolutely true. But you assume that I'm completely ignorant
>of the law (i.e. you've taken Lorrey at his word).

I don't assume that. I don't know what you know about the law.

With respect to Mike, I know that his *interest* in the law is genuine,
Mike's not the type to sit by and let lawyers carve out a new
priesthood for themselves, and I like that. I think that's healthy.

If Mike can forge himself a competitive edge by knowing more about
law than the average non lawyer then I say good luck to him. But the
IF in that sentence IS important. I don't assume that Mike, or you, or
anyone with an interest is right when they express an opinion on the
law just because they have an interest.  I'm not completely crazy.

Personally I keep a sort of informal score on credibility against a
posters name. But not just against their net credibility also against
their credibility in certain areas. When they talk sense I remember.
When they talk rot I remember.  I presume others might do the
same with respect to me. I hope they do.

>  I'm actually reasonably cognizant of the laws in this country covering
> tort.  I'm also reasonably cognizant of how they play out in "real life"
> as opposed to on paper, which I suspect Lorrey is a bit shaky on.

I'm interested in how they play out in real life. I don't see what
happens there that clearly from here.

> If he were better informed, he'd realize that class action, as it exists
> today, provides very little benefit to the plaintiffs. Some have argued
> that the plaintiffs in class action only serve to benefit the lawyers who
> are bringing the suits.

"Some"? "Only"?.  But what do you think? If the plaintiffs get some
payout that they would not have otherwise gotten isn't that still a benefit?

>  One of the key problems therein is that the lawyers have an incentive
> to settle, due to the burden on most civil court dockets, for substantial
> sums, but sums that are not sufficient to adequately recompense their
> clients.

Wouldn't the lawyers have incentives to maximise the payoff if they are
getting a percentage?

> The defendant company typically admits no wrongdoing in the
> settlement, the lawyers receive a sizable fee, and the plaintiffs receive
> pennies on the dollars of loss.  While certainly, -some!
> - class action suits are prosecuted effectively, an overwhelming
> plurality of them end in a settlement that's worthless in the sense
> that we've been discussing.

ie. With respect to being a substitute for the FDA?

> Now, lets imagine a system where we've doubled or tripled the
> number of cases of product liability. The courts would struggle to
> handle that kind of workload, thus providing even more incentive to
> settle and quickly.

Yes. Maybe. Certainly workloads transferred to judges and juries
still amount to work that has to be done. And perhaps less well.

> The stated goal of the suit - to punish the wrongdoer
> in order to provide a disincentive for further wrongdoing - is not met
> and further, the person who suffered the loss would not receive
> recompense.

If the system clogs.

> Sometimes, it pays to take a small dose of reality with your idealism.

I'm reading "your" as one's.  I don't think I have a lot of idealism.

> In a perfect world, I'd absolutely agree with the notion of axing the
> FDA. I'd certainly agree strongly that it needs systemic reforms right
> now.

In what respects? I think this line of exploration would take us onto
more useful ground. ie. Identifying what is specifically wrong with
the FDA, if anything, now. And therefore what would be real ways
to fix it.

>From memory the FDA was formed in 1906. A lots changes since
then, including the FDA I'm sure. But it's been  a couple of years
since I did an assignment relating to it.

>  But just blithely cutting out and hoping that the courts will solve
> the issues that arise is just a spank-fantasy. I think most of us
> recognize that reality is a bit more complicated than that.

Spank-fantasy must be US terminology. No. I get it :-)

Brett Paatsch