This project's funding goal was not reached on October 17, 2012.
About this project
AT WHAT POINT DO WE TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, AND AT WHAT POINT DO WE CITIZENS NEED TO STAND UP AND DEFEND THESE RIGHTS WHEN THEY ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY FROM US?
CLIPPED is a film that will set a new standard in exploring our constitutional rights by utilizing the power of art and music to set the stage for some serious issues that affect every American. It tells how creative expression, love, courage and a sense of duty propelled Diana Levine to fight for and win a historic victory for all Americans in the "Business Case of the Century," and how her victory in Wyeth v. Levine has been undermined by a new Supreme Court decision. This ruling exposes a troubling trend in American politics where citizens' and states' constitutional rights are being abandoned for the interests of SOME irresponsible companies, businesses who are actively seeking to increase the power of the federal government in order to minimize states' rights.
More than a story of justice, politics, business and law, CLIPPED is told through the lens of artistic expression. It shows how music played a central role in Diana's journey, both as a healing tool and an instrument of personal and social change.
CLIPPED aims to open a dialogue about Ethics and Morality in business and government, but is not anti-business or anti-government. We understand that businesses provide jobs and that the ability for businesses to make profits is what creates the incentive to innovate and create valuable products and services within our society. The government also goes to great lengths to protect consumers from monopolies, collusion, and fraud. But, we also understand that AMERICAN citizens are granted certain inalienable rights that protect us from harm and that guarantee our right to hold accountable those who cause us harm, such as our 7th Amendment Right to a trial by jury.
A BUDGET is critical for us to be able to tackle this project. Your CONTRIBUTIONS will help us in the following ways:
1. To acquire the EQUIPMENT we need to make this film.
2. To PAY the talented people who will help us to execute the project.
3. To afford the TRAVEL EXPENSES such as gas, motels, food and flights between Diana's home in VERMONT, WASHINGTON D.C., and to the many town around the country where victims cannot tell their stories.
4. To MARKET our efforts for maximum exposure of these important issues.
5. AND to RENT APARTMENTS in Vermont and Washington D.C. so that we have bases to LIVE and WORK from.
Diana lost her arm after receiving an injection of Phenergan, which is an anti-nausea drug. What neither she nor the clinic knew at the time was that the method by which she was administered the drug was very dangerous. The company that made the drug knew that if Phenergan entered into the artery, it would cause black hand and gangrene would subsequently climb up the limb.
She sued the company on the grounds of failure to warn. While injecting the drug inter-muscularly presents no danger to the patient, a push-iv does. But, the company chose not to warn about this potential in its black box warning label.
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals argued that because the FDA had approved their warning label already, they assume no responsibility for any harm caused by their drug or for failing to warn from the beginning. When Diana won compensation by a Vermont jury, Wyeth appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. The FDA, Pharmaceutical Industry and many others fought against her ability to hold Wyeth accountable. The Supreme Court deciding in Wyeth's favor would have expanded federal powers and protected businesses from liability to consumers. Such a ruling would have also taken away states' rights to hold companies accountable for such incidents of harm to their citizens.
Isn't Diana's case similar to the woman who spilled McDonald's coffee on herself and sued for millions?
You're absolutely correct! It is like this case, but what you think you know about the McDonald's' coffee case is completely different than the reality of what REALLY happened. Here is the breakdown:
The truth behind that incident may surprise you, as will CLIPPED. The woman who spilled the coffee on herself was in her eighties. She almost died as a result of third degree burns, after which she had to receive skin grafts to save her life.
There is a documentary about this called "Hot Coffee." (http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com) The reason she won the settlement was because her family looked into why the coffee hurt her so badly. What they found out was that McDonald's had been ordered by court to use devices to monitor the temperature of their coffee machines as there was an issue with them malfunctioning and elevating temps to dangerous levels. McDonald's failed to protect their customers from such incidents by refusing to implement a policy of calibrating their machines. This is another case of businesses ignoring customer safety, not a customer taking advantage of our tort culture. The tort reformers put a spin on this case and launched million dollar t.v. ads and billboards to make us believe in falsities!
Like this film, her case wasn't about robbing big business, but rather about protecting consumers and ensuring ethical and moral decisions are being made to do just that. In Diana's case, she argued that if the health care providers and patients were properly warned of the risk of loss of limb from the particular method by which she received the drug, she never would have chosen to curb her nausea 5 minutes quicker by accepting this method. These incidents share commonality with the Pinto case when the facts are allowed to pervade the spin.
It is what is expressed above that has motivated us to make this film.
- (30 days)