http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/business/12drug.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1255047713-KLc02vBPpCE9dfLh+/ua4w
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Jury Deadlock Ends a Trial Over Merck’s Bone Drug
This article is about a recent court case regarding the Merck product "Fosamax", where the jury was deadlocked, forcing the judge to call a mistrial. The case came about because a 71-year-old retired sheriff claimed that taking the drug for a number of years caused the tissue of his jawbone to die. The drug was originally designed to prevent bone loss in women who are going through menopause, though in the case of the victim the opposite effect seemed to be true. In the trial the prosecutors used expert witnesses who gave their opinions on the matter, while Merck used similar tactics to try and prove that the accuser had had jaw problems before and that the drug was not, if at all, solely responsible for her osteonecrosis. This case has been closely watched by both lawyers and pharmacists as this trial is a forerunner for other potential lawsuits against Merck for other products also having adverse effects. It was claimed that in total there are 1,200 cases against Merck for Fosamax alone, but despite the compelling evidence the jury could not decide guilt or innocence, and stocks in Merck still rose by 58 cents a share.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
1) I think the case as a whole is interesting, the fact that a medicine does the exact opposite of its original purpose perplexes me.
2) I think it is also interesting that there or more cases like this, it gets to the point where this compony should not defend itself. 1 case is one this, but 1200?
3) Its crazy that despite all this, their stock still rose.
1) one thing i would like to know more of are more of the arguments both sides made to cause a hung jury in the first place.
2) Maybe clarify if the other cases are of the same result, or maybe other side effects
1) I learned that medicine, these days, cannot always be trusted
The article, “Jury Deadlock Ends a Trial Over Merck’s Bone Drug,” was a very interesting court case that relates to forensics. George presented the case very well as he gave a clear description. The Merck product, fosamax, has possibly caused a 71 year-old retired sheriff to loose the tissue in his jawbone. Its also interesting that George maintains a neutral opinion on the case. He gives the opinions of both sides without biasing. A final factor of the article that is showed off nicely is showing how the case relates to other subjects. The mentioning of how it has affected the stock market is abstract, but good to know.
One suggestion for this article would be to maybe include a quote. Whether it be the sheriff, Merck representative, or a lawyer it is always captivation to hear someone’s opinion on a case. As well, a sentence could be included to define words like ‘osteonecrosis’ because not everyone knows what that term means. Otherwise, I enjoyed the article and was shocked that the jury could not make up its mind on the case. With 1,200 related cases, some court will be able to make a decision if the use of fosamax should be continued.
George’s review of the article “Jury Deadlock Ends a Trial Over Merck’s Bone Drug,” was very interesting for many reasons. First off, it is interesting to me that despite all of the controversy around this case, the company’s stock still rose. It is also strange to think that medicine that is meant to help people, like this one, ultimately hurts them. The article is also presented well without bias by George. George may have wanted to expand on the details of the other cases to make the review more interesting. Also, George could have, perhaps detailed a bit more of the legal proceedings of this case. Finally, I was shocked that this product supposedly caused so many problems for so many people. To me it should be a no-brainer to take this product off of the market.
“Jury Deadlock Ends A Trial Over Merck’s Bone Drug” is an intriguing article about an odd court case involving one of Merck’s products, “Fosamax”. In it, a 71-year-old sheriff blames this product for the death of his jawbone tissue. George presented this article in an unbiased point of view, including all the significant pieces of information, and he laid out the story in a very lucid, understandable format. However, I thought that at the end of his presentation there was a bit too many facts about the law components on the case and not enough about scientific factors as he discusses that “in total there are 1,200 cases against Merck for Fosamax alone.” As well as that, it would have been helpful to get a better description of the whole case and the product as to better understand the overall article. Nonetheless, his presentation was very accommodating to our forensic studies. I thought the most impressive part of this article was that Merck stocks are still going up after this article was released, which is ridiculous considering the harmful effects this product has had on people.
The first aspect of the event that I thought was well presented is the example of the sheriff. This is because it gives a real life example of how this medicine actually did they the opposite of its original purpose. The second aspect of the article that was well presented is the author tells the reader that expert witnesses were used instead of just saying witnesses. This gives the reader a better sense of the witnesses’ creditability. The third aspect that was well presented what the status of the drug company after all the law suits. The author tells the reader how much the stock prices rose for the company which was shocking due to the lawsuits. One aspect that the article could have improved was they should have given more information on what the drug is and how it works. Another aspect is they could have given quick examples of the other 1,000 cases against this drug company to reinforce the point that this drug doesn’t work. One aspect that interested me was how a drug that could help women could actually hurt men
3. This topic is very interesting and is quite common in modern day.
2. Usually it is civilians who sue companies for drugs that had negative side effects; however, here it is a sheriff which shows that it is not just a way to make some cash.
1. I was interested in teh fact that the drug is supposed to fix bones; however in the sheriff's case, it actually did the exact opposite and made bone cells die.
1. I would like to know more about the arguments that both sides used to defend themselves, such as how Merck got out of it and what they said exactly.
2. Talk about the other cases a little and how many were won by the plaintiff.
1. I was very interested to see that even when it was dead locked, people still bought stocks and, in fact, they rose.
1. i. I think that it is interesting that there are so many similar cases against Merck, and they are still adamant that their drugs did nothing in each and every case
ii. I think that this is a present topic that holds interest partially for that reason.
iii. The article was very nicely summarized.
2. i. I think that it would have been better if the article itself had gone into some more details about whether there might have been other reasons for the Mrs. Bole’s bone loss.
ii. It should have gone more into what kind of tests were done to assess Mrs. Bole’s case and determine whether or not it was natural bone loss.
3. I was impressed by the fact that Merck wants to try all of the cases that are brought against it instead of doing a mass settlement.
1. I thought this article was very interesting because it talks about how medicine is having a negative impact instead of positive one.
2. Also, it was interesting how this wasn't the first time something like this has happened. It talks about other instances where medicine has had the same negative affect.
3. Finally, it was a good touch on the article how it related the incident to stocks, and how the company's stock still rose.
1. Perhaps this article be improved if there were more details about the case and the arguments each side presented.
2. Also, the article could be better if George had been more clear on some of the details of other cases dealing with this product.
1. I enjoyed this article because it was very interesting to learn how this bone drug had so many cases like this. In my mind the company should be out of business and not rising in stock.
first of all two thumbs up!!!!! for this excellent blog. who would have thought that so much genius blogging could be blogged by this one of a kind blogger.
1) this case was interesting because it shows you that you cannot always trust all the prescriptions and drugs out there. even if they are approved by the FDA
2) this article also goes to show you that one cannot be certain how a drug will affect a human being. the body can react multiple different ways to a drug. we must be careful to anticipate that when posed with the challenge of testing and making a new drug.
3) this is also proof of how corrupt the drug market is and that they will do anything to make a buck even subject human lives.
1)i would like it if the article stated all of the arguments made in the trial. i hate being on the short side of the stick.
2) the should also include examples of others who have taken this drug and how they reacted to it.
1) i learned that the pharmaceutical and drug market and business is corrupted and one cannot trust what they intake, despite the right they hold to be ensured proper care.
George Hider presented the article, Jury Deadlock Ends a Trial Over Merck’s Bone Drug, which discusses the Merck’s product “Fosamax.” One thing that I thought was well done in the George’s summary was the fact that there was equal justice to each side. Rather than only talking about the side of the case that he agreed with, George talked fairly about both sides, weighing the pros and cons. Another interesting fact in this article is that there has yet to be a guilty plea, even though there are many similar cases to the one concerning Fosamax. It is confusing to understand how the medical field could allow this to happen, but then again we must realize that medicine companies and scientists make money by selling products; saying a product is bad or harmful, negatively affects profit. In addition, I thought it was weird how during, and even after the case, the company stock continued to increase as if nothing had ever occurred.
Although the article was well written, I think that author of the original article could have included more detail on the case. Maybe there are other reasons for the bone loss? Maybe not? Also, quotes would have made the article much stronger. It could have been a quote from anyone: the lawyer, Merck executives; “hearing” their actual opinion would have been helpful in reading the article.
From this article, I learned that people cannot always rely on medicine. There are plenty of doctors out there who truly want to help patients, and others who are just waiting for their next paycheck.
1. This topic is interesting because it is very common in what is going on in today’s world.
2. That there are so many similar cases against Merck, and they always describe how they did and their drugs did nothing in every case against them.
3. The concluding sentence did a very good job of ending on a strong note with good new evidence including two
1. I thought that there was probably more to the article that was left out.
2. I would also like to know more about the cases and the arguments the other sides had against them in more depth
1. I learned that through all that it was weird that the companies stock still rose
This review was well written and concise, leaving no room for unneeded details. I liked that he listed the number of cases against Merck for Flomax alone, 1200 cases. It also intregues me that the medicine actually caused the opposite effect, or at least that is how the review was directed. Regardless the crazy part of this review is that Merck's stocks rose after this trial. This review unfortunatly lacked the point counter point sides of both the defense and prosecuter. I would also have liked to read the results of the other cases involving Flomax. This article and review only enhanced my awareness that medicine cannot always be safe for use.
1) I learned that medicine, these days, cannot always be trusted
Post a Comment