|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2004 : 03:28:43
|
It kinda looks like a bill is going to get past our great and wise leaders that will prevent obease people from suing fast food(?) pits for their condition. On the surface, it seems right and proper. No one forces anyone to scarf McCrap day in and day out, and if someone does and can no longer find his feet, well, hey, that's tough titty. Stupidity should not be rewarded and neither should gluttony, right?
But I wonder what the final wording will be, and indeed how well this has been thought out. Fer 'xample, what if someone gets a serving of chicken parts that, a few hours later, lands him in the ER spewing violently from both ends and ultimantly puts him out of work for a couple of weeks, or even longer? Should he get some sort of compensation? And further, if the guy is fat to begin with, would or should he be disqualified from that compensation because he regularly pigs out on this stuff?
Is this bill an attempt to protect public health, or protect the profits of giant corporations?
And here's something of a sticky one:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=6527
It seems that a lady in Utah was about to have twins, but refused a ceasarian section. This resulted in one fetus dying. According to nurses at the hospital, she refused due to a fear of being scarred. Thus, she is charged with homicide and could get five to life.
The question is, it seems to me, under what conditions should one be forced to have invasive surgery? To save a fetus? To save the life of a patient who might not want to go on?
And exactly who's word do you take for the reason for the refusal?
Nurses? Doctors? Who?
I really must drink more coffee before trying to think this early.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 03/13/2004 : 05:30:32 [Permalink]
|
This is a good question. We don't want people murdering one another, but I think society has to draw some kinds of lines or we'd be outlawing birth control. Had the fetus lived with brain damage the mother wouldn't be facing such a tough charge. In my mind having a permanently dajmaged kid would be worse than killing it. What responsibility does the hospital staff have for forcing the mother to have the surgery? They knew the law, they knew that a life was at risk better than anyone else.
"Apparently, the mother's objection was cosmetic, not religious or ideological. It seemed she just did not want to have a scar."
Would it have made more or less sense if the reasons had been religious or ideological? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 08:23:57 [Permalink]
|
Like a chowder left on the stove too long, the plot thickens...
quote:
Charging a woman with murder for refusing a Caesarean section is nothing less than medical blackmail, says one women's rights advocate.
"Will it empower doctors to use that as a threat?" said Lynn Paltrow, who founded the New York City-based National Advocates for Pregnant Women two years ago.
Paltrow fears the developing Utah case could give physicians a new tool to coerce pregnant women into treatment.
http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03132004/utah/147350.asp
It's an insane administration running the country today, so who can say what might happen.
Edited to add: I just found a small voice of reason on the suicide burger question:
quote:
Spoiling for a food fight - or in search of a sexy political issue - the House passed a bill Wednesday prohibiting lawsuits that blame restaurants for making people fat. The legislation is a solution in search of a problem. It deserves a quiet burial in the Senate.
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-vpbes133706031mar13,0,6666153.story?coll=ny-health-headlines
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/13/2004 08:34:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 10:34:41 [Permalink]
|
| As far as the "cheeseburger bill" goes, I beleive I'm still in favor of at least some general tort reform as a solution to these sorts of idiotic lawsuits, rather than individual bills protecting particular industries from lawsuits. I think rules like "loser pays" would do a lot toward making people think before filing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 19:49:57 [Permalink]
|
| Regarding law suites against McDonalds for people getting fat eating their fattening food, I find the notion quite silly and think it would be sad if a jury actually awarded someone money for that. However, I also think a law to directly prohibit such law suites is a case of Congress overstepping it's legitimate role by giving a certain industry special treatment under the law. The correct solution to this problem would be to authorize the courts to charge penalties to plaintiffs who bring obviously frivolous law suites. That penalty should apply to both the plaintiff and their lawyer. Of course a decision as to whether the suite qualified as frivolous would need to be left to the jury, not to politicians. |
| Edited by - Espritch on 03/13/2004 19:52:13 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
I don't agree with limiting lawsuits like this when these businesses can and do deceive people about the quality of food. They also market to children like whores with the toys and crap and positioning of fatty and unhealthy foods where kids notice it in supermarkets. These businesses do have a lot to answer for. They share some guilt. It would not be such an issue if:
1. The marketing is brought under control and they don't agressively market poor quality food to children.
2. Food is labelled acurately. McDonalds pulled a fast one with their salads. They put them on the market to appear as if they were adding healthy items. Only one problem here. The salads were fattier than hamburgers despite the marketing that indicated they were McDonald's "healthy choice."
Sure. It seems like the lawsuits are baseless especially when the companies involved have so many resources to sell the baselessness to you just as they market unhealthy food to you and your children as healthy. I think this is the same sort of situation as cigarettes and we saw where those lawsuits went.
People can't make good choices unless their choices are clear and fast food outlets and even supermarkets have done all they can to confuse you, fool you and sell to your children who definately don't know low-fat from dog shit. It's all the crazy colors and Sponge Bob Bacon Fat Pudding. Consumers deserve better than choices like this and then being told that they are the ones to blame and that the people that spend billions selling them this shit as ice cream have no share of blame.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 03/13/2004 : 21:27:52 [Permalink]
|
The woman in Utah story is just wrong at every level. I get upset thinking about it. I don't know which is worse: letting your baby die to preserve your own vanity, or arresting a mother for exercising her right to make decisions about her body. I don't know how I feel about it, other than distressed. 
Obesity is a complex problem. Some people eat at McDonald's and DON'T become overweight. Some never eat at McDonald's and DO become overweight. Some are genetically predisposed to gain weight; some have eating disorders; some don't get enough exercise. To lay the blame on an entire industry isn't cool. But having said all that, I'm beyond tired of the Republicans consistently protecting their corporate buddies. It's getting old. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2004 : 04:21:47 [Permalink]
|
Tell me if I'm wrong here. The reason people sued Ford is because they knew something was wrong with the Pinto and said nothing. The reason they sued the tobacco companies is that they knew that their product was dangerous and they acted like it wasn't and even upped the levels of nicotine.
If all that's true, on what grounds will someone sue McDonald's and win?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2004 : 08:55:01 [Permalink]
|
Rudely awakening my few, remaining brain cells, I seem to recall that the suits against Ford and the wheezer companies were all class action involving a lot of plaintifs. I don't know if Mickey D. has had one of those.
Most of the suits against them, that I know of, seem to have been either settled for pennies, dismissed, or the rewards greatly reduced. Recalling the elderly lady that was badly scalded by coffee (which tastes so bad that it's even worse than what I make. They should be sued big-time just for that!) and was rewarded a couple of mil, she got reduced to something like $200,000. Less than chump-change by their standards.
I also recall that just recently, they caught a suit over their frys that were supposed to be healthier because they were cooked in vegetable oil rather than hawg grease. This was true enough, but the fries were treated with animal fat before cooking to enhance flavor, thereby negating all or at least part of the benefit. I don't know how this came out, if indeed it has reached a conclusion.
Upon what grounds to sue the burger cannons? I don't know -- could be a lot of things. Their advertising leaves something to be desired, certainly. Their labor practices have lots of room for improvement as does the quality of their product. It is far from the highest even before it's served. And indeed it seems like odd objects turn up in their servings almost weekly -- old band-aids and such, and once even somebody's pecker.
The problem with an individual suit is that the plaintiff is going up against all of the legal talent that huge dollars can buy. If nothing else, he can be tied up in court forever, and who needs that? The same for a class action, except not quite as bad -- misery enjoys company. Thus, people tend to settle for nickels and damned well glad to get anything. And who can blame them? If it were me, I'd feel the same way.
But not to worry; Bush has muttered, with slightly more coherence than usual, about making burger-shlepping a manufacturing gig. So, we'd be suing a factory instead of a resturant and therefore might stand a better chance. Yeah, right! 
Oh, by the way, cease panicing and not to worry; the afore mentioned pecker was a chicken head served in a box of fried chunks at, I think, Burger King. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 03/14/2004 09:01:05 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/14/2004 : 10:34:27 [Permalink]
|
As I understand it, there is a bill being introduced that would force restaurants to list calories, fat content and nutritional information, like food packaging has to. The restaurant industry will surely balk since this will mean rewriting their menus and drive though boards and whatever. I don't think this is such a bad idea. People could make informed choices. Mc Donald's could not hide the fat content of their salads, etc.
As for product placement in the grocery store, it is true that all the worst products in the cereal aisle are right at eye level for kids. When my kids asked for Captain Crunch, I said no. A parent can do that you know. My kids could have cheerios or some other low fat low sugar cereal. It didn't take long at all for them to figure out that no amount of pleading was going to get me to buy them crap in a brightly colored box. I'm not saying that the grocery marketing techniques aren't despicable. And maybe they do share some culpability for making kids fat. But it is the parent who makes the final choice here. They can't plead ignorance because the nutritional facts are on the side of every box. I would feel silly bringing suit against Safeway Markets for making my kids fat. It would be, it seems to me, an admission that I can't do my job as a parent. And I think it is the parents who are ultimately responsible. They are the ones buying the shit.
As for an adults who prefers a big mac and fries to a well balanced, or at least a low fat meal every friggin night, they probably need help. Obesity should be treated as an illness. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 12:28:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<snip>
Is this bill an attempt to protect public health, or protect the profits of giant corporations?
<snip>
The answer to this question I think is pretty clear. There is NOTHING in that bill intended to protect public health.
Here's an even better question: If lawsuits against fast food companies have no merit, and it really is the fat man's fault, then what possible purpose could there be to make those lawsuits illegal?
Put another way, if the lawsuits really DON'T have merit, then all that is needed is a few cases thrown out of court, thus setting firm legal precedence. Then there wouldn't be a lawyer in the land willing to bring a case on the issue - it would be a waste of time and money. So why would congress make a law to do what the legal system is designed to do all by itself?  That's the answer we should be looking for. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 04/05/2004 12:29:08 |
|
|
|
Woody D
Skeptic Friend
Thailand
285 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2004 : 13:16:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
I don't agree with limiting lawsuits like this when these businesses can and do deceive people about the quality of food. They also market to children like whores with the toys and crap and positioning of fatty and unhealthy foods where kids notice it in supermarkets. These businesses do have a lot to answer for. They share some guilt.
That's right, no limit on law suits but looser pays court costs.
Share the guilt is right!
Hey! I like those toys at the fast food places and you don't have to buy the food to get one. 2nd, does the word parents mean anything?
Can a 7 year old walk in and buy the stuff without some adult supervision? The guilt is on the parents.
And another word is education.
If the public was more educated we'd have juries that could see through the bullshit and decide or award more realistic judgements. Not to mention make better choices when eating. Or know the concequences. |
www.Carabao.net
As long as there's, you know, sex and drugs, I can do without the rock and roll.
Mick Shrimpton
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
