Posts
According to a recent Forbes article Wyeth spent a significant amount of moolah lobbying in favor of preemption in anticipation of the Levine decison.
Find the article here:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/12/ap6539686.html
One might wonder how much of the nearly million dollars in lobbying (not only on preemption)might have gone into new drug development, scientific innovation, making life-saving drugs more accessible, and all the other good things preemptors never cease to repeat they're committed to.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a completely legitimate business decision by Wyeth when you think about it. That is, if you consider the lives of your patients to be simply a part of a business equation.
ReplyDeleteThe equation being – invest $1M to eliminate product liability accountability.
What would the payback be? The cost of accountability is much more than $1Million.
Who wouldn't want a life free of accountability? Especially if you know that the chances you might commit an act deserving of punishment are pretty good. After all, look at what you’ve been caught doing in the past. Think what a great life it would be if you didn’t have to worry about those things any more.
Pity the fool that wanders into your path to profit.
Steve Forbes is a big businessman who supports big business. To his credit, Forbes published a Reuters’ article which included the following statements:
ReplyDelete“The use of hormone-replacement therapy by menopausal women increases their risk of death from lung cancer by 60 percent after five years…
But use of the drugs plunged after 2002 when the large Women's Health Initiative study was stopped after finding that HRT could raise the risk of breast and ovarian cancer, strokes and other serious conditions.” See: Hormone therapy lifts lung cancer death risk-study - Forbes.com, 5/30/09
However, in an earlier piece Mr. Forbes states:
”Unfair courts can be destructive to innovation, imagination and, ultimately, to the health of the nation.
Innovation flourishes in a benign environment of low taxes, common sense regulation and a sensible, restrained judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court certainly fell short of those principles when it ruled against medical innovation in Wyeth vs. Levine.
The court gave a green light to plaintiff's lawyers who would steamroll pharmaceutical companies at the cost of life-saving drugs and treatments for the rest of us.” See: Steve: A Destructive Court - Forbes.com, 4/20/09
Yes, courts can be unfair. However, Mr. Forbes is speaking on behalf of big business, not the people of this country who want to believe the medicine they are taking is safe.
How is it that a man with a wife and five daughters can overlook Wyeth’s betrayal to women?