Vioxx on Trial
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
As Sebastian Mallaby pointed out in his May 1 op-ed column, "No Defense for This Insanity," unscrupulous trial lawyers could destroy Merck & Co., one of the world's top pharmaceutical companies.
I agree with Mr. Mallaby's suggestion that in medical cases such as the Vioxx litigation, the jury pool should consist of scientific experts rather than laypeople. Further, each case should be reviewed in-depth before going to trial to determine if litigation is warranted.
The two verdicts that Mr. Mallaby refers to never should have gone to trial, let alone have resulted in rulings in favor of the plaintiffs. We need tort reform now.
CHARLES L. HOOK JR.
Germantown
Sebastian Mallaby, in decrying the spate of Vioxx lawsuits, appeared as confused about some basic scientific facts as the jurors he criticized.
Just because it took 18 months for a study to show conclusively that Vioxx caused an excessive number of heart attacks, it does not follow that an individual patient had to take Vioxx for more than 18 months before the drug could have contributed to a heart attack.
The tort system may be, and probably is, as dysfunctional as Mr. Mallaby claimed. But his readiness to swallow the positions of a drug firm that almost certainly hid vital risk information from the public for four years does not make for a cogent argument.
HOWARD BRODY
Galveston, Tex.
