Vioxx Verdict
I just read about the Vioxx verdict. It's so horribly unjust and destructive I don't even want to talk about it. Here's a link to Jane Galt who goes into more depth. One thing that she doesn't mention, though is that the FDA is now reccomending that Vioxx be put back on the market. I'm sure Merck will be eager to do so now that it has already sufferred $229 million in punitive damages already for putting it on the market in the first place and stands to lose billions more. I've pretty much lost faith in the jury system to handle any case that's even slightly complicated in a fair and just manner. For that matter I'm not sure that it handles simple cases right. ughh.
posted by Mike @ 11:01 PM
2 Comments:
Actually, the basis of the case was flawed; that's why the Ernst case got all the press. The fact that the jury saw through the defense's rather nasty logical ploys is to their intellectual credit. The fact that justice probably wasn't served is really an indictment of the American medical community, from the coroner, who ratherr vaguely stopped the workup at 'arrythmia', to the FDA, which has been very conservative in it's indictments. That will be us soon. Nothing is bringing Mr Ernst back, so, lesson learned for us in the future.
Whoa! My bust. I hadn't read the verdict. I concur with you whole heartedly and please read my first comment as one supporting the fact that the Ernst case is flawed. Whatever the errors of science, finding in favor of the Ernsts is deeply wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home