And I don't think drug companies should be sued for side effects that were not possible to be known during the study, and that which was not the result of masked or fraud on the part of the company to conceal it. Heres why, because that is the nature of medicine. nothing is free from the possibility of side effects, as I've discussed already.
If companies could get sued for all side effects, then why would the bother developing drugs? They spend so much money, so much time and man power to develop a drug (costs estimated between $500M to $1B), with an incredible failure rate and gigantic risk that the product won't even get a big market share if there are competitor drugs, if they have no profit to motivate this risk? These things are unavoidable, it would be like peanut companies being sued because someone had an allergic reaction and died. It's impossible to know how everybody reacts.
If you could sue for any type of non-negligent failure of any facet of medicine, doctors wouldn't treat patients, companies wouldn't put out products, people's lives wouldn't be saved, we would have no new medicine.
And again, 750K people have had the procedure, I'm sure many that love the procedure, everything worked great. There is the possibility, as well, that the doctors or patients didn't follow proper instructions. FActually, the biggest incidences of adverse side effects on drugs or devices is improper usage by the people.
As I mentioned with Vioxx, millions of people swore by the drug, there pain was alleviated, it was the best thing. The drug wa sa block buster. There was severe risk in 2% of the people, and it was pulled. But people acted like the drug was killing everybody that was taking it. What Vioxx showed was the nature of pharmaceuticals, and medicine in general.
Today, they could probably find the genes that lead to Vioxx's icnreased risk in people and screen for that. This is definitely the future of medicine and can help prevent these side effects if you can identify those that are at risk