Although this provision does not absolutely preclude design defect liability for pharmaceutical manufacturers, it sets a very high standard that most plaintiffs will be unable to meet. Do you think this standard is appropriate? Consider the following alternative standard (which is not the law anywhere, but has been made up for purposes of this question):

A prescription drug or medical device is not reasonably safe due to defective design if the overall foreseeable risks of harm posed by the drug or medical device outweigh its overall foreseeable therapeutic benefits.

How would this standard differ from the standard in the Restatement of Torts (Third)? In your opinion, should the law be changed to reflect the alternative standard? Why or why not?