Vioxx Litigation Update
Some of my earliest posts for this blog explored the legal battles that face many pharmaceuticals today because of the proven dangers of their drugs that were not fully disclosed at the time the drugs were released into the market. I spoke of Vioxx, Zelnorm and Celebrex, though they were certainly not the only drugs under scrutiny. About a month ago, I even touched on the death of a medication by black box, specifically questioning whether a doctor would go on prescribing a medication if it had been identified as one that should carry a black box warning that the medication could cause serious side effects, even death. Clearly, the field is fraught with turmoil as companies define the proper place for their medications in a market that is becoming increasingly skeptical of their claims of safety.
Merck & Co., based in Whitehouse Station, has been especially visible during this turbulent time, one of the first to receive heavy public criticism for their handling of the information about Vioxx and its dangers to people using the anti-inflammatory CO2 inhibitor. The Vioxx Defense fund, created to pay for the legal defense of its drugs, is about $810 million, and was likely much more at the start of its defense.
Merck saw a victory today in its case, in which the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that a nationwide class action law suit, similar to that which was taken against tobacco companies in the last decade, is inappropriate for this case. Class action law suits are intended to minimize the legal burden of hearing multiple cases on the same issue and compounding all cases into a single suit. While this type of action has many advantages because it brings to light those people who may have been underrepresented by their own law suit, its critics claim that the action dilutes the rewards to those who need it and gives benefits to those who don’t. Wikipedia has an extensive article on class actions here.
The work for Merck is not done yet, however. They are still likely to fight several individual law suits over the course of the next few years (27,000 are still pending), which claim that Vioxx is the cause of unexpected heart attacks or strokes. However, even in that cloud there is a silver lining for Merck, as more than 1170 of those cases have been dismissed, and even those that have gone to trial have favored the pharmaceutical company; Merck has won nine and lost five. The Boston Globe ran an excellent article summarizing the details of the dismissal, and you can read greater detail on this and other information in the trial here.
Don’t misunderstand me; I am no apologist for the failings of Merck in this Vioxx case. I certainly believe they failed to properly inform their customers of the risks of this medicine, and they deserve more than a slap on the wrist as penance. However, there are more agencies at work here, government agencies such as the FDA that are supposed to protect us from the mistakes these pharmaceutical companies can make. Was Vioxx rushed to market without appropriate analysis of the clinical trials that were conducted? And for the tens of thousands of people this drug was helping, had they been aware of the risks of the drug would they have continued taking it? What is acceptable risk in medicine, and who gets to decide?
All drug companies have a place, and unlike tobacco that provided a recreational drug that was known to be dangerous, class action lawsuits threaten the good that these companies do for society. Oncology drugs, other pain medications, and diabetes treatments, just to name a few, often give people back a quality of life that they might not otherwise have had. Drug companies should be better regulated and certainly punished when they knowingly dismiss those regulations, but creating scenarios that could run them out of business would not be beneficial to any of us.
What are your thoughts?
