FDA Regulation of Labels on Medications Preempts "Failure-To-Warn" Lawsuits Asserting That Manufacturers Of Ssris Failed to Adequately Warn of A Risk of Suicide Purportedly Associated with These Medications (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) FDA Regulation of Labels on Medications Preempts "Failure-To-Warn" Lawsuits Asserting That Manufacturers Of Ssris Failed to Adequately Warn of A Risk of Suicide Purportedly Associated with These Medications (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors)

FDA Regulation of Labels on Medications Preempts "Failure-To-Warn" Lawsuits Asserting That Manufacturers Of Ssris Failed to Adequately Warn of A Risk of Suicide Purportedly Associated with These Medications (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors‪)‬

Developments in Mental Health Law 2008, Jan, 27, 1

Developments in Mental Health Law
    • 2,99 €
    • 2,99 €

Beschreibung des Verlags

The most widely prescribed drugs in America are for the treatment of depression. According to reported data from IMS Health, a market research firm, 232.7 million prescriptions for antidepressants were written in 2007, an increase of 25% from 2003. It is estimated that 30 million patients in the United States spent $12 billion on antidepressants in 2007. Robert Cohen, Antidepressants Are on the Rise, THE STAR-LEDGER (Newark, N.J.), Apr. 11, 2008, at 35. A group of medications known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have come to be widely used to treat depression. Included within this category are the brand medications Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Luvox, Celexa, and Lexapro. Prozac was introduced in 1987 and became a very popular treatment modality for depression, in part because of its lower levels of toxicity and fewer side effects than older medications. However, because Prozac still causes some side effects, which can be relatively serious in some cases, and because it is not effective for all individuals in need of treatment, alternative medications within this category have continued to be developed.

GENRE
Gewerbe und Technik
ERSCHIENEN
2008
1. Januar
SPRACHE
EN
Englisch
UMFANG
8
Seiten
VERLAG
Institute of Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy
GRÖSSE
106,9
 kB

Mehr Bücher von Developments in Mental Health Law

Company Producing Oxycontin and Three Executives Plead Guilty to Federal Charges of Misbranding Company Producing Oxycontin and Three Executives Plead Guilty to Federal Charges of Misbranding
Company Producing Oxycontin and Three Executives Plead Guilty to Federal Charges of Misbranding
2008
Supreme Courts of Ohio and Iowa Rule That Pre-Trial Statements Made by a Child are Generally Inadmissible at Trial if the Police were Involved in Obtaining the Statements and the Defendant has Not had an Opportunity to Cross-Examine the Child; United States Supreme Court Declines to Review Rulings Supreme Courts of Ohio and Iowa Rule That Pre-Trial Statements Made by a Child are Generally Inadmissible at Trial if the Police were Involved in Obtaining the Statements and the Defendant has Not had an Opportunity to Cross-Examine the Child; United States Supreme Court Declines to Review Rulings
Supreme Courts of Ohio and Iowa Rule That Pre-Trial Statements Made by a Child are Generally Inadmissible at Trial if the Police were Involved in Obtaining the Statements and the Defendant has Not had an Opportunity to Cross-Examine the Child; United States Supreme Court Declines to Review Rulings
2008
Government Agrees to Compensate Family That Claims Childhood Vaccinations Caused Autism; Implications of Settlement are Contested (Poling V. Secretary of Health & Human Services) Government Agrees to Compensate Family That Claims Childhood Vaccinations Caused Autism; Implications of Settlement are Contested (Poling V. Secretary of Health & Human Services)
Government Agrees to Compensate Family That Claims Childhood Vaccinations Caused Autism; Implications of Settlement are Contested (Poling V. Secretary of Health & Human Services)
2008
Developments in the United States Supreme Court Developments in the United States Supreme Court
Developments in the United States Supreme Court
2008
Supreme Court of Virginia Holds That the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation is Not Entitled to Assert Charitable Immunity Doctrine As a Defense to Lawsuits Supreme Court of Virginia Holds That the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation is Not Entitled to Assert Charitable Immunity Doctrine As a Defense to Lawsuits
Supreme Court of Virginia Holds That the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation is Not Entitled to Assert Charitable Immunity Doctrine As a Defense to Lawsuits
2008
Texas Court of Appeals Holds That a Hospital had No Duty to Protect from Harm Three Individuals, Including an Ex-Wife, Who a Depressed, Paranoid, And Suicidal Patient Murdered After Leaving the Hospital Texas Court of Appeals Holds That a Hospital had No Duty to Protect from Harm Three Individuals, Including an Ex-Wife, Who a Depressed, Paranoid, And Suicidal Patient Murdered After Leaving the Hospital
Texas Court of Appeals Holds That a Hospital had No Duty to Protect from Harm Three Individuals, Including an Ex-Wife, Who a Depressed, Paranoid, And Suicidal Patient Murdered After Leaving the Hospital
2008