3 ms·
I'm curious about liability. My understanding (maybe wrong) is that for private drug manufacturers, the risk of lawsuits provides a strong incentive for safe,
by CoastalCoder 4y ago
I'm curious about liability.
My understanding (maybe wrong) is that for private drug manufacturers, the risk of lawsuits provides a strong incentive for safe, effective products.
Would a California-run facility have similar incentives?
- ggm 4y agoThey'd have exactly the same incentives, because they'd be bound in exactly the same regulatory environment. the F in FDA is for food. the other F in FDA is the silent (Federal) in front of it. its the US FDA. Its federal. Drug safety regulation is federal. It's a federal agency of the Department of Health and Human Services.
- yonaguska 4y agoUnless they get the Pfizer or Moderna treatment by labeling it as an emergency. Then there'd be zero liability.
- anarazel 4y agoThose were under a law that applies to vaccines only, afaiu. And even there it's not an absolute immunity, just a much higher bar. "willful misconduct". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergen... It's not an area I know well, but I am not aware of a similar grant if immunity for medication in general.
- zeruch 4y agoThe California facility would still be bound by the same standards (if anything, California is more not less stringent on things like that) and the risks are still the same.