So is this how it works in America now?

[Marius25]

Last edited Sat Apr 8, 2023, 01:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Since a fascist judge in Texas can overrule a medication for hundreds of millions of people, despite having absolutely zero understanding of how medicine works, does that mean a Doctor in California can overturn Dobbs, despite not being a Judge or having a law degree?

[Ms. Toad]

1. The question before the court wasn't a medical question.

It was a balance of powers question: Did the executive branch agency act within the rule-making authority granted by the legislative branch. It is the job of the judicial branch to make those decisions. (As to Dobbs - It isn't the job of doctors to overturn law.)

[spooky3]

2. I'm not a lawyer, but this quote certainly sounds as if

The judge was wading into scientific territory. On what basis can he judge studies to be “unsound”?

https://wapo.st/3nUWOua

“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” Kacsmaryk wrote in the 67-page opinion. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.” He added that the agency had faced “significant political pressure” to “increase ‘access’ to chemical abortion.”

Later in the same article:

“ In a statement Friday, the group’s senior counsel, Erik Baptist, said the FDA “never had the authority to approve these hazardous drugs and remove important safeguards. This is a significant victory for the doctors and medical associations we represent and more importantly, the health and safety of women and girls.

”
Public health professionals and legal experts had denounced the lawsuit as unsupported by scientific evidence. The FDA has repeatedly found the two-step medication abortion protocol to be a safe and effective alternative to surgical abortions. The drug manufacturer, Danco, and the Justice Department have called the plaintiff’s claims baseless.”

My observation (as a retired scientist):

The conclusion that drugs are “hazardous” etc. must be informed by scientific evidence. That is not a matter of legal procedure although legal issues may be involved in other elements of the case.

[walkingman]

3. Are these fucking people trying to drive us crazy? It's working. I feel like I'm going insane

and at my age I don't have far to go. Praise Jesus.....

[Mr.Bill]

4. When a doctor is sued for medical malpractice

The decision of guilt ot innocence would be made by a jury of people who would probably not be medically qualified in any way. I sat on the jury in a murder trial and listened to doctors from both sides about the details of the autopsy. Whether or not it was self defense or not hinged on some of the details of that autopsy. I have no medical education beyond science class in high school. I had to judge which doctor was correct.

Of course I think this judge did not educate himself on this matter and made a political decision.

The system only works if the people making such decisions can avoid political or other biases.