Register to Comment
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
Like Tree12Likes
  1. #11
    NYCKY NYCKY is offline
    NYCKY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6,301

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_anderson View Post
    No it won't.
    In fact, it will accomplish the very opposite.

    If I go into a casino with the knowledge that my losses will be shared amongst all gamblers, then I'm going to make larger bets than I otherwise would.
    If I am 100% liable for my losses, than I will be more careful.
    Exactly, it's called Moral Hazard.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12
    Tea Party Patriot Tea Party Patriot is offline
    Tea Party Patriot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    12,474

    Quote Originally Posted by 44percent View Post
    It will encourage better standards across the industry that's why. It will also mean less of a burden on the sovereign which will mean less tax there. That should appeal to you unless your stance on fewer taxes only means fewer taxes on companies. The role of the sovereign, you seem to be implying, is to bail out the messes which private enterprise make. Oh wait, that's what it's doing at the moment.
    You seem to think there is some obligation on the sovereign to bail out people in the first instance. If the private company is found liable and is insolvent why should the taxpayer have to bail out those affected?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #13
    Mushroom Mushroom is offline
    Mushroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    8,739
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by Male Nude Photographer View Post

    There are only 32 surviving victims of Thalidamide.

    One of them spoke very clearly on the issue on Marian Finucane's (Claire Byrne deputised) radio programme yesterday, Saturday 14/07/2012.

    It reflects badly on DOCTOR James O'Reilly that this issue is now going to the courts. I feel it could be sorted out with a modicum of goodwill on the part of the Minister of Health.
    A recent Irish Times report on the matter suggests to me that this isn't a straightforward, black and white issue.

    The key point is that the Government has been advised by the Attorney General that “the State does not have a legal liability” for the injuries suffered by Irish survivors. This advice, presumably, obliges Doc Reilly to act in a particular way.

    That being so, it appears to me that the ITA might be well advised to quit grandstanding on peripheral issues such as its objections to the phrase "goodwill gesture" inter alia, and get down to sorting out the money that these unfortunate victims badly need.

    "The Irish Thalidomide Association said the decision to take action had been brought about by the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Health “weaselling” out of a commitment in the programme for government to hold discussions regarding further compensation for those affected by the drug. Talks between the association and Minister for Health Dr James Reilly have not progressed since a meeting in July last year.

    The association said Dr Reilly had offered to hold a medical review, but not on a statutory basis, and they were unwilling to participate in the exercise on those terms.

    Members were also “horrified” by the use of the term “gesture of goodwill” by Dr Reilly in reference to compensation they might receive. “We felt that after 50 years it was very belittling,” association member Finola Cassidy said.

    The association yesterday said its 25 members were lodging applications with the Injuries Board and they expected authorisations to be promptly issued to allow their actions to go before the courts with all due haste.

    Association member Dr Austin O’Carroll said [that] the survivors had received legal advice suggesting there were significant issues with the fairness and adequacy of a 1975 compensation deal agreed by their families with the then government and the manufacturer of the drug, Chemie Grünenthal."

    The ITA needs to be clear that no Irish government body (including the Injuries Board) can pay out exchequer funds willy-nilly - so if, as appears to be the case, there isn't a statutory liability, then the IB simply can't pay them.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #14
    Hooch Hooch is offline
    Hooch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,215

    Quote Originally Posted by Tea Party Patriot View Post
    You seem to think there is some obligation on the sovereign to bail out people in the first instance. If the private company is found liable and is insolvent why should the taxpayer have to bail out those affected?
    The state grants licenses for the sale of drugs based on their safety and efficacy, people use the drugs on the basis of those assurances. In this case the drug was obviously not safe, therefore the state, having failed in its duty, must compensate the victims.

    Quote Originally Posted by 44percent
    It will encourage better standards across the industry that's why.
    There is already very strict regulation for new pharmaceutical products, any problems during the clinical trials of a new drug usually spells the end of it.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment