藥品設計是不同的

在一篇題為《〈侵權行為法重述（第三次）：產品責任〉中有設計缺陷嗎？》論文中，George Conk批評美國法律協會和新重述的報告人免除處方藥製造者設計缺陷責任。本文是新重述的報告人對他和其他批評者的一個回應。本文第一部分概述Conk的論文，包括他對新重述的解釋。第二部分指出Conk批評中的重大錯誤：他誤讀了重述，而且他對血液案例的依靠是錯位的。第三部分解釋新重述對處方藥品設計的處理和它對產品設計缺陷的一般處理之間的實質性的差別並使之正當化。這些差別包括新重述拒絕允許法院去考慮尚未得到FDA許可的可替代的更安全的處方產品（在一般設計條款下，法院通常是考慮尚未上市的替代性設計的）和拒絕犧牲一類患者的福利去增進另一類患者的福利（在一般設計條款下，這種消費者之間的相互利益犧牲通常是得到寬容的）。第三部分也解釋為什麼藥品設計訴訟不能通過減少其複雜性而合法地被變得更有利於原告，以及為什麼新重述的規定不會明顯地降低製造者發現新的、更加安全的處方產品的積極性。

In an essay entitled Is There a Design Defect in the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability？, George Conk criticizes the American Law Institute and the Reporters of the new Restatement for immunizing prescription drug manufacturers from liability for defective design. This Paper offers a response both to him and to other critics. Part I of this Essay summarizes Conk’s thesis, including his interpretation of the new Restatement. Part II identifies significant errors in Conk’s critique: He has read the Restatement incorrectly, and his reliance on the blood cases is misplaced. Part III explains and justifies the substantive differences between the new Restatement’s treatment of prescription drug design and its treatment of defective product design generally. These differences include the Restatement’s refusal to allow courts to consider alternative, safer prescription products that have not yet received FDA approval (under the general design provisions, courts routinely consider not-yet-marketed alternative designs) and its refusal to sacrifices the welfare of one class of patients to enhance the welfare of another class of patients (under the general design provisions, such cross-consumer sacrifices of welfare are routinely condoned) . Part III also explains why drug design litigation cannot legitimately be made more plaintiff-friendly by reducing its complexity and why the rule in the new Restatement should not significantly reduce manufacturers’incentives to discover new and safer prescription products.