The new immigration law enacted in the state of Arizona earlier this week is an egregious act of backwards thinking that sets the tone for draconian measures that will negatively impact millions of Americans and non-Americans for years to come.
This law, which commands that Arizona law enforcement officers demand to see the papers of any "suspicious" person who might, by some chance, be in the country illegally, will cause many individuals to be searched and questioned for no good reason other than the color of their skin. In an article by Robert Creamer on "The Huffington Post", the author correctly likens this new law to the legal climate in Alabama in the early 1960's.
Beyond requiring officers to question any individual who might be deemed as potentially illegal, the law also allows private citizens to file suit against any officer who they feel is not fully enforcing the new law, thus deputizing citizens to join in a witch hunt that will hurt families, children, communities, and the very economy of the state of Arizona.
Many law enforcement officials also believe that families with undocumented members will now choose to not report crimes for fear of being targeted by police under the new law.
In terms of health care, one of my main concerns is that injured or sick individuals in need of medical attention will choose to forgo medical care for fear of racial profiling. Most hospitals and medical institutions will treat needy individuals with or without proof of citizenship, and this new law will now send chills down the spines of sick or injured persons in need of urgent medical attention, and the human cost of such untreated illness is simply gruesome to consider.
No one can fully foresee the true human, moral and economic cost of this legally misguided and immoral act by a governor who is certainly sewing the seeds of his political demise.
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Friday, March 06, 2009
Of Lost Limbs and Litigation
A Vermont woman who lost her arm to amputation following a botched IV injection of Phenergan has now been vindicated by the Supreme Court, the justices ruling against Wyeth Pharmaceutical by a 6-3 margin.
Essentially, the Bush Administration had made it relatively easy for large corporations to protect themselves against lawsuits at the state level, even if state regulations are tougher than similar federal regulations. In this particular case, Wyeth claimed that it was protected by the FDA's labeling of the drug, yet Vermont regulations went further than the feds, and the Supreme Court has sided with states' rights in this regard.
I am not a legal scholar by any stretch, and cannot even begin to understand the nuances of this decision and its ramifications. However, from the point of view of compassion for an individual who suffered an enormous loss, this decision states quite clearly that those who suffer from negligence can indeed receive compensation for their suffering despite federal regulations which seek to protect corporations from such litigation at the state level.
The injured woman, a musician by vocation, lost not only her arm but her means of supporting herself financially. While it has been admitted that the physician assistant who administered the medication IV push was basically following the FDA-approved label for the use of the medication, the label still lacked sufficient warning that such a technique was extremely risky, at best. What is at issue in this case is that federal regulations protected Wyeth Pharmaceutical from liability based on litigation at the state level. With this decision, those federal regulations are brought into question, and thousands of injured individuals---and perhaps whole communities---may now be in an entirely different legal position than previously thought.
Legalities aside, my personal feeling is one of celebration for this woman who lost her arm, her vocation, and a calling that brought her such joy and personal fulfillment. I rejoice for her victory and for the financial freedom that this compensation will afford her. In terms of the legal issues surrounding the case, I will leave that to the scholars to debate, and that debate will likely rage for years to come.
Essentially, the Bush Administration had made it relatively easy for large corporations to protect themselves against lawsuits at the state level, even if state regulations are tougher than similar federal regulations. In this particular case, Wyeth claimed that it was protected by the FDA's labeling of the drug, yet Vermont regulations went further than the feds, and the Supreme Court has sided with states' rights in this regard.
I am not a legal scholar by any stretch, and cannot even begin to understand the nuances of this decision and its ramifications. However, from the point of view of compassion for an individual who suffered an enormous loss, this decision states quite clearly that those who suffer from negligence can indeed receive compensation for their suffering despite federal regulations which seek to protect corporations from such litigation at the state level.
The injured woman, a musician by vocation, lost not only her arm but her means of supporting herself financially. While it has been admitted that the physician assistant who administered the medication IV push was basically following the FDA-approved label for the use of the medication, the label still lacked sufficient warning that such a technique was extremely risky, at best. What is at issue in this case is that federal regulations protected Wyeth Pharmaceutical from liability based on litigation at the state level. With this decision, those federal regulations are brought into question, and thousands of injured individuals---and perhaps whole communities---may now be in an entirely different legal position than previously thought.
Legalities aside, my personal feeling is one of celebration for this woman who lost her arm, her vocation, and a calling that brought her such joy and personal fulfillment. I rejoice for her victory and for the financial freedom that this compensation will afford her. In terms of the legal issues surrounding the case, I will leave that to the scholars to debate, and that debate will likely rage for years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)