The Washington Post gets it right on Vioxx

Oh my goodness. The Washington Post--no friend of conservatives and no friend of even common sense--editorializes brilliantly on Vioxx:

Politicians and regulators should be asking themselves whether a system of massive cash awards to people who may or may not have been adversely affected by Vioxx is a logical, fair or efficient way to run a drug regulatory system. They should also be asking whether juries that scorn medical evidence are the right judges of what information should or should not have been on a prescription label. After all, Vioxx was produced and sold legally. The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and its label did warn of coronary side effects. It is possible, even probable, that Merck was negligent in its decision to ignore early warnings of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx. But the company has already paid a price for that negligence, in the losses it has suffered after abruptly taking Vioxx off the market. Fair compensation for the injured needn't entail disproportionate financial punishment as well.

In the long term, using the courts to "send a message" to Merck isn't going to help consumers. If the result is an even more cautious FDA approval system and a more cautious pharmaceutical industry, that will keep innovative drugs off the market for much longer. More people will die waiting for new treatments. The cost of producing new drugs will rise dramatically. Already, there are whole areas of medicine -- women's health during pregnancy, for example -- that are made so risky by liability issues that companies may stop doing research in them.

Comments

[Myles McGuire]

As explained by a different blog, the Post's

"view ignores many of the realities of the situtation. First, thousands of people have claimed that they have suffered non-fatal, yet still serious, injuries as a result of taking Vioxx, including minor heart attacks, strokes, etc. Without the ability to award punitive damages, juries might "compensate" many of these people by giving them as little as $50,000. While that sounds like a good bit of money, that likely wouldn't even cover the costs of bringing the suit. Experts alone could cost tens of thousands of dollars, and, because Merck has vowed to fight each case fully, the costs of litigation would often exceed the benefits of a successful suit.

In other words, many, many victims would simply not be able to bring suit in the first place. And Merck would be the only winner."

http://classactionconnect.com/blog/2005/09/washington-post-merck-has-suffered.html