Abstract
Opioid litigation continues a growing public health litigation trend in which governments seek to hold companies responsible for population harms related to their products. The litigation can serve to address gaps in regulatory and legislative policymaking and in market self-regulation pervasive in the prescription opioid domain. Moreover, prior opioid settlements have satisfied civil tort litigation objectives of obtaining compensation for injured parties, deterring harmful behavior, and holding certain opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies accountable for their actions. In this way, opioid litigation represents progress over prior public health litigation campaigns involving tobacco, lead paint, and asbestos, which had more limited tort litigation effects. Although opioid litigation is not a comprehensive solution to the opioid crisis, it can complement other strategies and infuse much needed money, behavior changes, and public accountability for prescription opioid and related harms.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Health Policy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference92 articles.
1. 42. Id. at 609-10.
2. 52. Ausness, J. , “Litigation Against Drug Companies Is Ineffective,” Presentation at the 25th Annual Thomas Pitts Lecture-ship in Medical Ethics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, April 4, 2019.
3. 64. Id.
4. Tobacco Control in the Wake of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement
5. “It's Still Here – the Continuing Battle over Asbestos in America,”;Leonardi;Villanova Law Review,2005
Cited by
15 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献