5 ms·
Yeah imagine if we make pharmaceutical manufacturers accept liability for vaccine side effects. It’s the same argument right.
by slickrick216 5y ago
Yeah imagine if we make pharmaceutical manufacturers accept liability for vaccine side effects. It’s the same argument right.
- Synaesthesia 5y agoIts up to us to decide upon regulations which benefit society the most. Nothing wrong with applying common sense in each instance.
- kragen 5y agoThere are definitely a lot less pharmaceutical manufacturers now than there were before the Pure Food and Drug Act passed in 01906; ten companies have 40% of the whole worldwide drug market, and if you start openly making and selling drugs yourself (like Coca-Cola in 01886 and 7-Up in 01920), you will probably get arrested within a month. Almost nobody makes drugs as a hobby now. There are certainly people who would like to make it so that the same thing happens with software and online publishing: a few companies controlling almost all of the activity, and if you release any software or host a blog without working for one of those companies, you get arrested within a month. Other people don't intend that, but advocate policies which would have that effect.
- eru 5y agoI am sympathetic to your argument, but be careful to avoid 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.
- kragen 5y agoI think there's a clear line of causality here, though.
- eru 5y agoHmm, I think so, too. But it weakens your argument a bit. Basically, it would only convince people who are already convinced.
- kragen 5y agoHow would you make the argument?
- eru 5y agoNot sure, it's hard, since we seldom have randomised controlled experiments here. Perhaps try looking for natural experiments, eg compare between countries, or between different sectors. (Sometimes there's also silly legislation you can exploit for statistics, like the Onion Futures Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act) which can help to see the impact of futures trading on commodities. Perhaps there's some corner of the pharmaceutical market that wasn't hit or was less hit by the Pure Food and Drug Act?)
- yosito 5y agoI don't think it's the same argument. Being liable for the things you actively and intentionally do to all of your customers is not the same as being liable for a risk inherent in a medical procedure that you've done your due diligence to prevent and warn about. In either case, there should be some form of accountability, but they are not at all the same thing.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoSide effects are expected. Vaccines provide enormous benefit but are not without risk. Patients must receive information about risks and choose whether to accept or reject treatments. This is not at all comparable to corporations slurping up all data they can get their hands on for marketing purposes. Modern medicine provides enormous benefit for society. Surveillance capitalism... doesn't. Certainly not enough to justify the massive abuses being perpetrated.
- slickrick216 5y agoI agree however allowing any company regardless of its business the opportunity to escape liability of consequences is dangerous. Pharma companies have in the past and will continue to have their scandals same as any other industry. There shouldn’t be exceptions. Who gets to define what industry is important or not and therefore avoids regulation is dangerous as it’s only as reliable as the “who’s” in control.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoI'm not saying pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be regulated. I objected to the notion they should be held liable for side effects. Those are known risks inherent to the treatments. Widespread data collection on the other hand is totally unnecessary and should absolutely be a massive liability for any company that does it.