Speaking of statues w/ limitations...
Posted on 08/13/2004 9:22:10 PM PDT by Unknown Freeper
It was used for nausea and as a sleeping pill.
Our courts will accept too many foreign cases lik this one and our taxpayers will end up paying the court costs.
I do not think her expectations were legitimate and do not think her suing the airline because of their refusal to board her is legitimate either.
Now if her lawsuit is that the Airline caused her distress by their rudeness in addressing the problem; that is another issue; although, we do not know what 'she' said. . .before 'they said'.
We could also maybe allow that the 'insensitivity' of this airline rep; may have been the result of her being taken by 'psychological surprise' here. . . .
Paris to New York; while not a 'sky marathon'; could certainly pose some herculean-like challenges, nonetheless. . .and at the psychological expense of the other travelers and/or/if only. . .the 'crew'as well. . .should we get real insensitive, here.
This woman needed an assistant; and still maintain; that her expectations to travel solo, were surely meant to challenge (financially) the airline; for whatever reason. . .
You know, I happen to know that there's at least one Freeper who only has one leg. This isn't a comment about being PC, it's about not being cruel. Are those of you who goofed on this subject sure that you want to insult one of your own?
Without being either of the above, do not see any comparison. One leg missing does not assign one to a 'disabled' or incapaciated status as it would apply to a 'limbless' individual.
I do not think anyone who is incapacitated - physically or mentally - should travel anywhere alone; much less on an airplane.
I also don't think that chidren; who by virtue of their 'being children'; should travel alone either; but who are, nonetheless, too often loaded on a plane sans a parent or 'responsible companion'.
I have seen small children, senile adults; the almost totally infirm; packed into their seats; and given a kiss and a wave good-bye.
That to me is a real cruelty. . .
and it does not even come close to a 'common-sense' reality that should exist in the mind of everyone traveling, post 9/11.
Speaking of statues w/ limitations...
Thanks, Marie. Common sense and compassion are IMO important components of conservatism at its best.
MM
You are very very bad --- that's actually very funny!
It could be like letting a relative with Alzheimers fly alone and then suing the airline when they got lost. Some people need to be accompanied --- that's sad but that's life.
The FDA did not prevent the thalidomide problems that occurred in Europe theough sound scientific means and thorough but fair testing methods. The prevented it by slow walking and foot dragging and general bureaucratic malaise.
I'm that the children who were spared crippling birth defects didn't care about the methodology used to prevent the importation of thalidomide.
If this is a flight over water, wouldn't there have to be a modicum of ability on the part of passengers to help themselves in case of the plane ditching over the water?
While her birth problems are not of her making, This lawsuit is. She doesn't deserve a dime. The ticket agent could have explained it to her a little better, I think, with an explanation about being ablebodied enough to survive in a water landing(ditching, really).
What about the number of children that die each year because the FDA has made the process prohibitively expensive and so drawn out? There are thousands of drugs that with tremendous potential but since it costs at least $500 MILLION to meet the FDA's requirements and the drug company sees that the demand is very small (rare diseases) that they simply cannot afford to develope it.
I can definitely sympathize with the activists who are trying to reform a slightly antiquated regulatory agency.
My only point was that there is always going to be a trade-off in these types of situations.
Most often, it involves assessing the potential damage a prescription drug may do, versus the potential benefit that may accrue to the wider society through its approval and dissemination.
I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't want to live in the 'Gilded Age', where patent medicines were the standard treatment for ailments like cancer, dropsy, colic, consumption, influenza etc., etc.
It costs alot of money to develop anything new, drugs, whatever. The bigger problem with drug companies trying to find help/cures for illnesses, etc, is that it truly is R & D.
NOT EVERY drug works for EVERY PERSON.
But--EVERY PROMLEM works for EVERY LAWYER, it seems.
All drugs would be alot cheaper if the legal crap were removed.
It costs alot of money to develop anything new, drugs, whatever. The bigger problem with drug companies trying to find help/cures for illnesses, etc, is that it truly is R & D.
NOT EVERY drug works for EVERY PERSON.
But--EVERY PROBLEM works for EVERY LAWYER, it seems.
All drugs would be alot cheaper if the legal crap were removed.
Stightly antiquated? If anything the thalidomide has been used for even MORE footdragging. It currently takes nearly TEN YEARS to jump a new drug though the FDA's hoops. And like I said, the FDA forces the drug companies to pass over drugs that might save the lives of just 1000 people per year because it would drive them into bankrupcy.
You got that right.
"that always stunes my beeber"
Which brings to mind that age old question:" Is "Regult Beeber" a good name for a rock band?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.