Post Number: 232
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 8:38 pm: || |
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/a pps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20077 0222013
Nothing like making the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries feel welcome here. Nice victory for the trial lawyers. The generally poor people who allege damages against the pharmaceutical industry will just remain poor and unemployed since these industries will have little reason to do business with this state.
Post Number: 258
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:41 pm: || |
So Sanofi-Aventis should be shielded from liability for FDA-approved Ketek?
http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB114644463095840108.html?mod= blogs
Post Number: 318
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:42 pm: || |
Glad to see the Democrats tackling the important stuff with their newfound power. You know, not like the budget or economy should take precedence.
Post Number: 2168
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 10:52 pm: || |
Lessenberry wrote about this in the latest metrotimes.We should all be glad this brutal idiotic law may be rversed or wiped out. Or would some of you prefer no recourse at all should you or someone you care about be killed or damaged by a drug from a large pharmaceutical concern. Frankly given the general liberal tenor of this forum I am a bit surprised that there seems to be a republican slant on this topic.
Docmo your handle implies you may be in the field.It seems to me the right to life crowd is hurting the life sciences in mich what with their paranoia over stem cells.
Post Number: 234
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 11:10 pm: || |
You're right. I am a moderate Republican physician who completely disagrees with the conservative Repubs who are hurting our life sciences potential by restricting stem cell research.
Sucking the life out of pharmaceutical companies with unrestricted liability litigation hurts this entire state and the people who might have been employed by the industry. There are a very few plaintiffs who might benefit from this type of legislation. The real winners are the trial lawyers with their 30-40% contingency fees.
Post Number: 209
|Posted on Thursday, February 22, 2007 - 11:53 pm: || |
The liability system, or lack of a system, in the US is ruining our economy and society in so many ways I can't begin to list them.
We almost need a new constitutional amendment at the Federal level. I've been working on it for six or seven years. Here's what I've got so far; let me know what you think.
"If you are a child, then your parents and nobody else are responsible for you, with regard to the rest of this amendment. If you are an adult, then you should grow the f**k up and realize that all of life is harmful and dangerous. If you go into a hospital to get an operation, that is risky. If you get into your car and drive somewhere, that is incredibly risky. If you take any kind of medication or use any product that plugs into an electrical outlet, you must understand these activities carry risk. Nothing is or can be made completely safe and it is your f**king job to watch out for yourself.
To put it as succinctly as possible: if you slip and fall on an icy sidewalk, tough shit. You should have been paying attention. Dry up and blow away, you litigious bastard."
That may need some cleaning up but I think the basic concept is straightforward. By the way, if the swear words in this post offend you, the text of the proposed amendment should give you an idea as to how much concern I have about that.
Post Number: 259
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:00 am: || |
And if a pharmaceutical company fabricates data in order to garner FDA approval for their product, then the FDA approval should shield them from liability?
Post Number: 2169
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:16 am: || |
Forgive my language but if someone fucks up we simply must have means to redress the situation.I would love to read of a case where someone screwed over a drug company.
Profscott you sure aint any prof I would want to learn from.Unless you are joking you come off as a moron.As someone that had someone very close to me die as a result of taking a medication I am offended by your idiocy. In a remotely advanced civilized society we have a right to expect that the medicine our doctors prescribe is trusworthy_ or should I say to docmo sorry but I can't take this because I might risk dieing? Give me a fucking break.
And by the way the compensation we received from the pharmaceutical co was hardly excessive.It was on par for what the person would have earned had they lived based on age and occupation.And it was an amount that indicated the drug company realized they fucked up.Other people had simliar experiences with this medication including a physician and it was pulled from the market.
You had better pray to whatever it is you pray to that no one you care about has to face this. Because you might be looking at what welfare shithole nursing home you have to put that person in.
Docmo, I won't pretend to know what you know. However for a legitimate victim to have no recourse is wrong.
Post Number: 210
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 12:42 am: || |
What an odd notion: something bad has happened to me, therefore everybody else has to pay. I don't buy into this: I plan to die someday; how is of no importance. I may be hit by a bus; I may eat some bad lunch meat; I might live to a ripe old age and die of natural causes. What of it?
If you sue a drug company and win, that does not harm the drug company; it simply costs more for everybody else to buy their drugs. What makes you think you have the right to sue anyone based on someone's potential "future earnings" if they die from some effect of a drug rather than being hit by a bus later that same day?
It is this bizarre concept - that other people are responsible for our safety - that makes so many things outrageously expensive for everyone else. The cost to society of lawsuit-happy jerks is nearly incalculable.
If you go back to the history of how civil liability came about, it used to be very simple. If I sign a contract with you, and you don't hold up your end of the contract, I can sue you to recover the actual damages. That was the whole point, originally.
This current insanity came about, in large measure, when our law schools started to graduate too many lawyers and came up with the solution that they should advertise. Before that, things were not so bad.
Shakespeare had one of his characters in Henry V say "...The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Bill was being ironic, but maybe he was onto something.
Post Number: 21
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 2:02 am: || |
I agree ProfessorScott, Too many suits filed for damages which should be handled by our penal system and not civil court. If a drug company fudges documents or bribes a federal agency for approval of a knowingly risky or potentially problematic product. Thats intent to do bodily harm and should be punishable by law, not settled in civil court. In other words, fry their arses. The officials involved too.
If someone is killed by an unsafe product and the manufacturer knew it was unsafe and it could be dangerous, failed to warn the consumer, total disregard for the end users well being, etc., that should be handled as a criminal act. And I don't mean a guy buys a knife and cuts himself with it. If he cuts himself, hes too careless to own a knife and its his own fault. Thats his responsibility to be aware of his own abilities. Companies have liabilities, but consumers should have responsibilities as well.
There is an army of people out there knowing what counsel is available and just looking for the right opportunity. The present system is great for the very few on the receiving end of it. The victims are anyone who actually tries to be responsible and have proper insurance/protection from would be plaintiffs and their lawyers. Its a real killer on businesses.
And I'm always perplexed by the $ amount of wrongful death settlement claims on TV. Just how much is a person worth? Who sets that price tag? Then does the money really offset the loss? It wouldn't for me. If it is compensable then there was intent, therefore it was a criminal act.
Post Number: 2170
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:33 am: || |
For your infornation prof the quote you cite from Shakespeare is always taken out of context; and your no exception. It was the governors and the rulers that were advocating killing all the lawyers because they(lawyers) were helping people get justice when they had been wronged_ the killing all the lawyers idea was to crush that.
Sorry but we do have a right to expect not to be injured by something such as a drug that we buy in goof faith.As I said pray to whoever or whatever it is you pray to that someday you don't have to pick out some shit infected nursing home for someone you care about. Because you had no recourse against a drug co for something they may have done wrong. And you have no money to care for that person._ btw I like how you completely ignore zephrs question about falsifying data which is not an unheard of practice.
(Message edited by citylover on February 23, 2007)
Post Number: 259
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:40 am: || |
Just a little F.Y.I-
The goverment has been studying many illegal drugs for many, many years and will admit they don't know all the side effects/interactions/long term effects. Keep in mind most illegals have been around for decades. However, the FDA only requires 1 YEAR of study before a drug is released on the populace!
Post Number: 2172
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 10:45 pm: || |
Since this thread has all but died I would point out to profscott one thing.You are callow in your accusatory tone regarding my right or anyone's right to sue for future potential earnings.I believe that is how it is done i.e. when damages are awarded say for example a young father has a severe anaphylactic reaction to a drug and dies,then part of the damages are based on what he would have earned.Your bus analogy is irrelevant.No point in going any further with that.
Anyhow the point is the future earnings is a typical way of what is a rather obscene way of compensating for loss of life or severe physical injury _ money.
Post Number: 7
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:11 pm: || |
"The generally poor people who allege damages against the pharmaceutical industry will just remain poor and unemployed since these industries will have little reason to do business with this state." What?, how many Janitors do you think Pfizer employed?. My guess is the majority of those employed at Pfizer were highly skilled, not the "generally poor and unemployed" you speak of. There are plenty of us that are well educated AND unemployed, but I doubt most of those being laid off by Pfizer will have a hard time finding employment. In fact, I believe I heard most were simply being transferred to other areas. Either way, your original statement just doesn't make much sense to me, and is befuddling.
Post Number: 2634
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:28 pm: || |
After spending state funds on Pfizer, the guv now wants to throw more money on Pfizer's employees, which is ridiculous. The ones that Pfizers wants to retain will be transferred to Groton, which is some three times larger than the AA facility. Hopefully, most of them will land on their feet quite nicely without being bailed out.
Jen believes that those who don't transfer might startup their own businesses in MI. Instead, why don't they use the SBA for that purpose--its main function for existence?
It would be better for Michigan if its government spending were checked instead, leaving more funds available for the private sector for investment. The entitlement gravy train has got to stop sometime.
(Message edited by LivernoisYard on February 23, 2007)
Post Number: 236
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 11:58 pm: || |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/P OLITICS/702230368
These issues regarding drug company liability are complex.
Merck is attempting to survive massive litigation from alleged Vioxx victims. It is very easy to condemn Merck and the FDA. It is not quite so simple.
Vioxx is a drug which was not initially recognized by Merck, the FDA or any of the independent researchers to be a pro-coagulant. Subsequent to Vioxx's clinical introduction, studies began to note that patients who used Vioxx had a higher incidence of heart attack and strokes versus other anti-arthritic drugs like naproxen (Aleve). It was demonstrated that Vioxx is a pro-coagulant. Pro-coagulants are agents which increase the risk of thrombo-embolic events. Morbidity associated with thrombo-embolic events are most commonly myocardial infarction (heart attack) and stroke.
The increased risk of thrombo-embolic events is not demonstrated until patients have been treated with Vioxx for over one year. One major study showed that, over an 18 month period, 9% of patients in the Vioxx treated group versus 6% of patients in the naproxen treated group had heart attacks or strokes. Universally, there was more consistent arthritis pain management with Vioxx versus naproxen.
You have essentially zero increased risk of sustaining a heart attack with Vioxx with short term use. You also have negligible risk of having a heart attack with long term use of Vioxx if you are otherwise young and healthy. The patients who manifested heart attacks and strokes while taking Vioxx were, for the most part, already at risk for these events. These are older patients who frequently had high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol, tobacco use and obesity as additional risk factors.
So, the question for any individual patient who had a heart attack while taking Vioxx is: Is this a heart attack which would have happened anyway or is this a heart attack "caused" by Vioxx? For the great majority of the alleged victims of Vioxx, that is an impossible question to answer.
The biggest problem that Merck has is that there is evidence that Merck withheld/manipulated some of this post-introduction clinical data. I would argue that Merck should be held criminally and financially responsible to the Federal government for any manipulation of clinical data regarding this product. In our messed up legal system, though, many of the alleged victims of Vioxx will receive millions of dollars just to teach Merck a lesson. That was the whole premise behind the Erin Brockovich movie. Again, the big winners in the whole Vioxx mess are the trial lawyers and some relatively small number of possible patient victims.
Another common pro-coagulant class are oral contraceptives. The reason oral contraceptives have not been pulled from the market are because of the different types of patients who use the Pill versus Vioxx. Generally, women who use the Pill are young and healthy with a very low risk of heart attack. If you smoke and are over 35 you are not supposed to use the pill because of an increased risk of stroke, heart attack or blood clots. Vioxx is no less safe than the Pill. It is simply the patient groups who are usually treated with these drugs.
So, Vioxx gets pulled from the market and the best anti-arthritic pain reliever ever developed is taken away from hundreds of thousands of people who were at low risk for heart attack. Many of these people, to this day, lament the loss of this drug. Vioxx was also an excellent post-surgical pain reliever which significantly lessened our reliance on narcotics for analgesia.
Narcotics work, but they are associated with very serious side effects (nausea, vomiting, severe itching, constipation, excessive sedation, confusion, and respiratory depression which may lead to brain injury or death). Any drug which lessens the use of narcotics for post surgical analgesia greatly helped those of us involved in surgical pain management and our patients. The fact that Vioxx was shown to be a pro-coagulant was actually beneficial to its use in postoperative pain relief. Better to have a drug which does not increase the risk of bleeding when you are dealing with surgical pain.
Most people incorrectly assume that Vioxx was pulled by the FDA. That's not true. Vioxx was voluntarily pulled by Merck. Why? Because of all the publicity and liability risk mounting against the drug, Merck made a public relations and CYA move to take the drug off the market. Hundreds of thousands of patients suffered from this move.
In my opinion, the most appropriate course to have taken with Vioxx would have been to develop restrictions on its use similar to oral contraceptives. Do not use the drug for long term arthritis pain management in patients at any increased risk of heart attack or stroke. OK its use for long term pain management in patients with minimal risk for these thrombo-embolic events. OK its use for short term surgical pain management.
Unfortunately, our system of excessive product liability and litigation has taken a drug with major benefit away from patients who had little, if any, risk from taking that drug.
The system is f***ed up. Merck will be spending major cash, over many years, defending itself. It will likely pay out hundreds of millions to the some thousands of alleged victims and their lawyers. This is cash that could have been funneled into further new drug R & D. This is cash that could have been used by Merck to expand its manufacturing and R & D employment and community investment. The communities and states intimately associated with Merck are suffering mightily from this Vioxx mess.
This brings me back to Pfizer. One of Pfizer's most recent celebrated drugs is Celebrex. Celebrex and Vioxx are very similar drugs. Simply put, Vioxx worked better than Celebrex, but Celebrex is associated with a lower incidence of thrombo-embolic events. While Pfizer nor the FDA decided to pull Celebrex off the market, Pfizer suffered greatly by association with the Vioxx debacle. Very few patients are now treated with Celebrex. The primary reason for this is that physicians are reluctant to use Celebrex due lingering liability concerns associated with its use. Celebrex use has tanked even though it is still on the market. Celebrex used to be, along with Lipitor, the major source of income for Pfizer. Michigan and Ann Arbor, in particular, have significantly suffered as a result of the Vioxx debacle.
Now, our Democratic state legislature wants to allow unrestricted liability litigation against pharmaceutical manufacturers. Great move. Just what the people who need to work in this state need. Just what our fledgling life sciences/biotech and what's left of our pharmaceutical industries need.
I am not excusing malfeasance by these manufacturers. If Merck truly did withhold/manipulate data, then they should be held accountable by the Federal government by fining the hell out of them and possibly taking criminal action against the principle operatives within the company.
This whole system of liability litigation to correct alleged corporate wrongdoing serves little purpose or benefit to anyone save the trial lawyers. My proposal for taking care of patients harmed by FDA approved drugs would be that the Government provide financial remuneration to these victims and their families.
Suing the hell out of the companies is not the way to go.
Post Number: 237
|Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 12:18 am: || |
Sorry, I was not very clear. I'll see if I can expound on my original statement.
I contend that many of the people who sue pharmaceutical companies are frequently underemployed and less well off financially. While Pfizer may have not had a large direct contingent of lower pay employees, there are a very significant number of lower paying jobs which supported this 2000 employee R & D facility. Those people all had to eat lunch somewhere.
When Pfizer lays off massive numbers of R & D people, that will likely lead to an associated decrease in manufacturing employment somewhere.
So, yes. I believe that many lower paying jobs in Ann Arbor will suffer as a result of closing the R & D facility. The whole city of A2 will suffer. Much less in tax income will come into the City. Pfizer was the largest single taxpayer in A2. Less municipal income, less municipal services to the poor.
Post Number: 2381
|Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 8:44 pm: || |
Sucking the life out of pharmaceutical companies with unrestricted liability litigation hurts this entire state and the people who might have been employed by the industry.
You're absolutely right. If HB 4044 passes, Michigan may well lose every single one of those jobs that were created 12 years ago when we became the only state in the nation to give drug companies almost complete immunity in tort cases.
We didn't gain any jobs when that happened.
Well, I am sure all of the drug companies will see this as a sign to take their business to one of the other 49 states...
...who have never given them any such immunity and who aren't offering them business incentives through something like the 21st Century Jobs Fund.
Post Number: 241
|Posted on Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 11:41 pm: || |
This whole litigious society is what is broken. Suing Merck into oblivion does little to improve society. We medical professionals lose what was an excellent drug in Vioxx, as long as it was limited to low risk patients/situations. The trial lawyers and a small number of alleged victims will make out but society loses.
Post Number: 2382
|Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 10:59 am: || |
Okay - you don't think people should sue pharmaceutical companies (or shouldn't sue at all).
Fine. Make that your argument instead.
All that I ask is that you not argue that HB 4044 will result in massive job losses or unrealised job opportunities. Michigan gave the drug companies the kind of legal immunity that had previously only dreamed of for 12 years.
Michigan didn't gain a single job as a result, even though we are home to some of the best research universities on the planet. Our medicines didn't get any cheaper.
We got all the pain of a business-friendly tort system, but none of the benefits. All HB 4044 does is say to the pharmaceutical industry that if you're not going to treat Michigan any better than you treat the other states, we're not going to treat you any better than those states do.
Post Number: 243
|Posted on Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 2:03 pm: || |
Maybe if more states had followed the lead of Michigan 12 years
ago this country would have realized some real benefits.
Republicans argued the bills would make prescription drugs more expensive and hurt Michigan’s life-sciences industry and economy, with Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton, calling the immunity repeal “another nail in the coffin for Michigan jobs.”
"MichBio, an Ann Arbor-based nonprofit organization dedicated to growing the life-sciences industry in Michigan, was among business groups fighting the House action.
“I find it incomprehensible how, on the one hand, the state’s leadership is wanting to promote and grow the life sciences industry, and then on the other hand, put road blocks in the very way of that growth,” said MichBio executive director Stephen Rapundalo. “You can’t have it both ways. Something’s got to give. And we are either committed to this growth and do the right things to foster the proper business climate, or we have to recognize that it’s going to go somewhere else.”"
Yeah, just what this state needs. Piss off the few remaining life sciences/pharmaceutical firms left here.
You argue that Michigan didn't gain a single job from this previous business friendly environment--Where's you're documentation?
To argue that repealing this legislation will not lead to any jobs losses seems incomprehensible. Michigan is having a very difficult time competing with other life sciences corridors. The owners of some of these companies will undoubtedly pack up and move to other areas with top notch universities. Why deal with a state and its new business adverse government. This is just the latest issue of many this state has in poorly attracting/retaining these high tech industries.
Post Number: 2383
|Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 11:43 am: || |
You argue that Michigan didn't gain a single job from this previous business friendly environment--Where's you're documentation?
My documentation is every newspaper published in Michigan during the past 12 years.
Have you seen any significant job growth in Michigan the pharmaceutical industry during the past 12 years?
To argue that repealing this legislation will not lead to any jobs losses seems incomprehensible. Michigan is having a very difficult time competing with other life sciences corridors. The owners of some of these companies will undoubtedly pack up and move to other areas with top notch universities.
Where do you think they are going to go? To one of those states that also isn't giving them complete immunity from litigation?
Post Number: 294
|Posted on Monday, February 26, 2007 - 3:02 pm: || |
most illegal drugs were first produced in mass quantitys at merck