 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / August 2005Texas jury awards widow $253.4 million in first Vioxx trial
Texas jury awards widow $253.4 million in first Vioxx trial Forbes// A jury ruled against Merck on all major counts in the first trial relating to its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, awarding a Texas widow $253.4 million ... > Texas jury awards widow $253.4 million in first Vioxx trial > > Forbes// A jury ruled against Merck on all major counts in the first > trial relating to its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, awarding a Texas > widow $253.4 million ... Well that explains all the Merck commercials I've been seeing lately. Didn't Congress and Bush just pass legislation that limits punitive damage awards against pharmaceutical companies to $250K? It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. Merck has set aside $675 million in the bank to fight the Vioxx victims. > It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in > Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. Thank God. >It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in >Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. > >Merck has set aside $675 million in the bank to fight the Vioxx >victims. Quite rightly. It's not as though all the lawsuits being filed have merit. I know there are cases where someone took Vioxx and died of a heart attach a week later. Sorry, I don't think cases like that can fairly be attributed to Vioxx. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile." -- Anon. > >It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in > >Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a heart attach a week later. Sorry, I don't think cases like that can > fairly be attributed to Vioxx. We may soon have to sign a form (informed consent) when we are prescribed a new Rx drug. I doubt that most people prescribed Vioxx were told that it may kill them when taken as directed. Some senator from California or NY will author a bill that requires all Rx vials to have the warning, "This drug may kill you when taken as directed". Narcotic drugs used to come to the pharmacy labeled "Warning this drug may be habit forming" and I would attach a sticker on the patient's bottle with the same warning. That labeling somehow got discontinued over the years. When I recently had surgery I had to sign a form stating I was told that the risks included death from the procedure or from the anesthetic. > >It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in > >Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > a heart attach a week later. Sorry, I don't think cases like that can > fairly be attributed to Vioxx. As far as I'm concerned, if the almighty FDA has given it's stamp of approval, it should absolve any drug company from liability. >> >It's a hollow victory. Thanks to George W. Bush's "tort reform" in >> >Texas, the most that the widow could collect is $1.65 million. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >As far as I'm concerned, if the almighty FDA has given it's stamp of >approval, it should absolve any drug company from liability. You should take note that sarcasm doesn't always transmit well over Usenet. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your killfile." -- Anon. I have had personal experience with a similar situation. I was a whistle blower in the "Fen-Phen", diet drug, litigation. I informed the trust that was handeling the settlement in that case that lI thought that aw firms were submitting fraudulent echocardiograms in that case in order to frauduletly obtain large compensatory funds for themselves and their clients. These same "prominent: law firms, against whom I testified at a deposition in Philadelphia, were later adjudicated to be under "RICO", organized criminal, classification. Nurses,lawyers, doctors, and other health care providers were paid large sums of money to participate in these criminal and civil wrongs. Although I may be incorrect in my observations, most of the invididuals directly responsible for these wrongful acts were carefully selected for their lack of character and their easy corruptibility. The law firm involved in this action that initially hired me quickly fired me, an male RN-Paralegal, when they came to the conclusion that I had character and was honest. It is clear to me that these organizations threw around a lot of money in order to obtain a lot of money. From what I have been told, this is the usual methodology of GRAFT. I was punished economically severly for my "whistle blowing". This is, probablly, one of the contributing factors to the VIOXX problem and other drug and related negligence cases. Whistle blowers are punished while those that contribute to the criminal conspiracy are protected by hoards of lawyers and given huge amounts of cash! > I have had personal experience with a similar situation. I was a whistle > blower in the "Fen-Phen", diet drug, litigation. I informed the trust that [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > conspiracy are protected by hoards of lawyers and given huge amounts of > cash! Crying shame. Steve  SignatureCut the nonsense to reply >I have had personal experience with a similar situation. I was a whistle >blower in the "Fen-Phen", diet drug, litigation. I informed the trust that [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > conspiracy are protected by hoards of lawyers and given huge amounts of > cash! I don't agree with G.W. on most things...but limiting the amount of damages that a person can get through this systematic legalistic Graft is definitely a good idea. Ethical people like you are on the steady decline in American culture. > Texas jury awards widow $253.4 million in first Vioxx trial > > Forbes// A jury ruled against Merck on all major counts in the first > trial relating to its withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, awarding a Texas > widow $253.4 million ... ...but it looks so much better in the headlines that the widow has received the 253.4 millio... (even if she hasn't...) /ana Taking drug is a big risk. If you are not intelligent enough to figure this out, then the onus should be on your physician and pharmacist to ensure you understand these risks before putting you on a prescription. If the physician and pharmacist is not intelligent enough to decipher the product monograph, then the FDA should update the rules for the development of the monograph. In any case if the clinical trial data don't reveal safety information, then how can a company lie about the negative potential of the safety on a drug in the product monographs ? Therefore the clinical trials have to be re-designed and re-regulated, and there needs to be a system to include subjective, and objective safety data in addition to formal safety data derived from clinical trials. I am not too sure that Merck actually ignored the safety data, they probably may have decided to drive along the edge of the regulations since the clinical data were acceptable to the FDA with respect to safety. The other issue is that society in general has a bad attitude towards these types of recreational and lifestyle medications, mostly shaped via advertising, perhaps running ads on TV to influence patients who don't have the education on how drugs work in your body shouldn't be influenced. I propose a 3 part change: 1) ban all advertisements to patients 2) reregulate the safety portion of clinical trials to include non-relevant data and comments 3) charge physicians and pharmacists with some responsibility when it comes to safety review, each physician / pharmacist should join a membership club if they wish to prescribe these medications to patients, the club would be regulated by independent safety body, including the FDA, and insurance companies. Putting the blame on a company for someones' death is not the most productive way to solving this medical issue facing us today. >> Texas jury awards widow $253.4 million in first Vioxx trial Forbes// A >> jury ruled against Merck on all major counts in the first [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > /ana |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.