Will side effect of Vioxx cases be a bitter pill for consumers?
Imagine a pharmaceutical company putting a prescription medication on the market knowing that its use could result in death. In August, a jury in Texas awarded the wife of a Vioxx user $253 million in damages for the wrongful death of her husband, concluding that Merck & Co. had done just that.
But in the second state-level Vioxx trial, decided last month in Atlantic City, Merck and its executives were found not guilty. This week, the jury in the first federal Vioxx trial deadlocked. These results will affect the more than 6,000 complaints that have been filed against Merck, as both sides adjust their strategies.
Merck has already lost sales and, perhaps, consumer confidence. This large New Jersey company announced massive layoffs and five plant closings.
But one question needs to be answered: "Were Merck executives really at fault for not disclosing the potentially fatal side effects of Vioxx?" I recently asked the students in my MBA economics class. "I guess Merck should pay dearly if there was deception that resulted in deaths."
"That's not exactly true," one of the students said. She and about five others worked in the pharmaceutical industry. I encouraged her to continue.
She said pharmaceutical companies were in business to help people while making a profit for their stockholders. Her company invests years and often hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development to try to discover drugs that can help cure diseases and other medical conditions.
For every 15 drugs that look promising, she continued, maybe one makes it to market. Numerous and expensive clinical trials are conducted to determine the effectiveness of the medication and any negative side effects. The federal Food and Drug Administration then determines whether the benefits outweigh those potential side effects. If they do, the company is allowed to sell the drug. If not, the company absorbs a huge loss.
Many Vioxx users have had their pain reduced with no side effects. In her opinion, Merck did nothing wrong.
There is a potentially long-term problem here, she added. No one wants a high-risk product on the market, but lawsuits may do more harm than good. (Law firms are already advertising on TV for former Vioxx users to represent.) If Merck is unsuccessful in defending itself, it may have to scale back its business or close altogether.
If someone in the company did something improper, let's ensure it doesn't happen again. If damages to life have occurred because of Vioxx, let's fairly compensate, she said. But by awarding ridiculously large punitive damages, we are threatening the existence of drug companies. Look at all of the diseases and conditions that have been cured or minimized. Do we want to reverse that?
She has a point. Do we really want to punish an entire industry, prevent lifesaving medications from becoming available, and curtail future research?
But in the second state-level Vioxx trial, decided last month in Atlantic City, Merck and its executives were found not guilty. This week, the jury in the first federal Vioxx trial deadlocked. These results will affect the more than 6,000 complaints that have been filed against Merck, as both sides adjust their strategies.
Merck has already lost sales and, perhaps, consumer confidence. This large New Jersey company announced massive layoffs and five plant closings.
But one question needs to be answered: "Were Merck executives really at fault for not disclosing the potentially fatal side effects of Vioxx?" I recently asked the students in my MBA economics class. "I guess Merck should pay dearly if there was deception that resulted in deaths."
"That's not exactly true," one of the students said. She and about five others worked in the pharmaceutical industry. I encouraged her to continue.
She said pharmaceutical companies were in business to help people while making a profit for their stockholders. Her company invests years and often hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development to try to discover drugs that can help cure diseases and other medical conditions.
For every 15 drugs that look promising, she continued, maybe one makes it to market. Numerous and expensive clinical trials are conducted to determine the effectiveness of the medication and any negative side effects. The federal Food and Drug Administration then determines whether the benefits outweigh those potential side effects. If they do, the company is allowed to sell the drug. If not, the company absorbs a huge loss.
Many Vioxx users have had their pain reduced with no side effects. In her opinion, Merck did nothing wrong.
There is a potentially long-term problem here, she added. No one wants a high-risk product on the market, but lawsuits may do more harm than good. (Law firms are already advertising on TV for former Vioxx users to represent.) If Merck is unsuccessful in defending itself, it may have to scale back its business or close altogether.
If someone in the company did something improper, let's ensure it doesn't happen again. If damages to life have occurred because of Vioxx, let's fairly compensate, she said. But by awarding ridiculously large punitive damages, we are threatening the existence of drug companies. Look at all of the diseases and conditions that have been cured or minimized. Do we want to reverse that?
She has a point. Do we really want to punish an entire industry, prevent lifesaving medications from becoming available, and curtail future research?
posted by Chris Placitella at 6:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home