Not only is this ruling, 6-3 in favor of the plaintiff, Ms. Levine, inconsistent with others involving preemption because of FDA-approved warnings of products, but it is basically unfair. Ms. Levine was administered a dose of Wyeth drug Phenergan, an anti-nausea medicine, intravenously, contrary to an explicit warning, aproved by the FDA, against the risk of arterial injection which could result in gangrene and loss of limb. Levine, a professional musician, tragically lost her right hand (and then her forearm) precisely for the issue the warning addresses.
Ms. Levine successfully won a suit against the hospital, but then went after Wyeth, claiming the FDA mandated warning wasn't strong enough. She pointed out Wyeth was aware of other, similar cases of improper injections and should have made an even stronger warning, e.g., prohibiting its use. She won a $7M judgment (subsequently reduced).
Plain and simple, Ms. Levine went after "deep pockets", the bizarre legal concept which says you can go after a tangental party, not morally culpable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, simply on the basis it has more resources to compensate a victim. The fact is that the physcian assistant ignored multiple warnings, and Wyeth had no control over what he or she did. It is highly unlikely the same physician assistant would have been deterred by a different message to ignore.
The end result is there is a cost to these lawsuits. No doubt parasitic lawyers, looking to pan for fat fees in the aftermath of the ruling, will go after other pharmaceuticals with deep pockets for other cases where a medical professional ignored approved FDA warnings, even though the companies are already struggling to compete in a tough world of expiring patents and billions needed to market new products. This increased risk ultimately gets reflected in higher prices born by the consumer and/or fewer new products.
Rush Limbaugh The Voice of the GOP?
I frequently make unfavorable references to what I call the "media conservatives", in particular, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity. I first got exposed to Limbaugh through a co-worker at an IBM subidiary in the Dallas area. I often heard my colleague, a pro-choice conservative, chuckle while listening through his headphones. I have never really listened to his show, although he had a syndicated TV program at the time, and I followed that for a few months.
For the most part, I prefer more cerebral type media conservatives, like George Will, the late William F. Buckley, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich. I may eventually write dedicated posts on certain media conservatives. I still have not forgotten how the popular media conservatives came out against John McCain during the primaries. Ann Coulter is simply toxic; the only thing I've read from her that I liked was a column she wrote on her late father. Sean Hannity comes across as a little repetitious and argumentative on some popular talking points (e.g., Bill Ayers).
Rush, of course, recently created a firestorm by basically saying he hoped that Obama would fail in implementing his left-wing agenda. The White House, eager to divide-and-conquer disspirited conservatives, has pounced on Rush, implying he is the face of the Republican Party.
I have been tough on Obama's policies and positions, and I am empathetic to what Rush was trying to say. However, I would not have put myself in a situation of letting myself get quoted out of context wishing Obama would fail. I would have reworded the point differently: I hope, for instance, so long as the Congress has spent almost $800B on a so-called stimulus bill that the country gets some reasonable relief. However, I believe any recovery will be despite Obama's efforts, not because of them. But I think Obama's people have made a serious error in going after a radio talk show host saying he hopes Obama fails. President Bush faced far harsher criticism each day of his Presidency.
