Health care setback

When a giant, seemingly impersonal pharmaceutical firm is sued by an all-too-human family who believes their loved one died of a heart attack as a result of taking the company's pain-killing drug, whom do you think a compassionate jury is going to rule in favor of?

The family, of course. And so it was in Texas last week when a civil jury awarded a widow of a man who took Vioxx - a prescription pain inhibitor produced by Merck - more than $253 million in damages. Never mind that Texas' cap on punitive damages will cut the award to about $26 million.

As The Wall Street Journal points out, the plaintiffs' victory still will fuel thousands of more lawsuits against Merck, not only domestically, but from around the world. It also will encourage thousands of other lawsuits against drug companies that produce pain inhibitors, such as Pfizer, which makes Celebrex. If Merck and other drug companies lose thousands of lawsuits that cost them $26 million each in "reduced" damages, it won't be long before they'll be billions of dollars in the hole and filing for bankruptcy.

Who'll be the big winners then? The plaintiffs' bar, for sure, and some of the clients. But the biggest losers won't be the drug companies; in human terms, it will be all those people who suffer from arthritis and other manifestations of chronic pain for which Vioxx, Celebrex, etc. provide significant relief.

Those medications, also known as Cox-2 pain relievers, are easier on the stomach than over-the-counter medications such as Bufferin and Aleve. But even nonprescription drugs could soon be taken off the market as they, too, are coming under fire as cardiovascular risks.

If the plaintiffs' bar has its way, there will be virtually nothing left on the market for pain sufferers to relieve their pain. Moreover, research and development for new "miracle" drugs to fight pain and other illnesses will be shelved in favor of defending against expensive lawsuits. The general public will suffer, but wealthy lawyers, having found a new asbestos and tobacco cash cow to milk, will prosper more than ever.

The final miscarriage of justice is this: The Texas jury that made that humongous $253 million award did so although Merck, not the Federal Drug Administration, took Vioxx off the market itself last September, when the firm's own research showed the risk of heart attack or stroke doubled for patients who took the medication for 18 months or longer. Yet the Texas man whose widow won the award had taken the Merck pain killer for only eight months, and he died of clogged arteries, not a heart attack.

In other words, the verdict was based on faux science rooted in emotion, not reason. These are the kind of medical verdicts that drive up health insurance costs while reducing quality medical care. Until juries come to their senses, don't expect the nation's health care crisis to get any better.