Vioxx on Trial

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.