August's Big Pharma Scandals

August may be a slow news month, but not for stories about what's wrong with the drug industry. In just one recent week, the New York Times published three articles that exposed what we're up against with Big Pharma--and the weakness of the agency that's supposed to regulate it.

On August 6, "At Midpoint of Vioxx Trial, Merck Looks Battered" explained how the drug company Merck "appears to be in a deep hole" in its court case in Texas, where it was being sued by the family of a Wal-Mart employee, Robert Ernst. The family charged that Ernst died from an arrhythmia caused by the painkiller Vioxx after taking the medicine for eight months. The coroner who did the autopsy on Ernst told the jury that "Vioxx was probably responsible for Mr. Ernst's death," the Times reported. And the jury agreed this afternoon as it found Merck liable in Ernst's death and awarded his widow a settlement of $253 million.

And this is just the first of more than 4,000 other lawsuits in which the company is being sued over Vioxx in state courts in California, Texas and New Jersey and in US federal court, with liabilities for the company potentially running as high as $30 billion.

The second article ran three days later. "Today's Insider Trading Suspect May Wear a Lab Coat" exposes another problem that has led to our unsafe market for prescription drugs. Doctors and scientists are now joining forces with the big drug companies to promote their products and are increasingly "working as consultants to investors, especially hedge funds," the Times reported.

Most important, though, the SEC is "taking a closer look at whether doctors, participating in criminal trials with drug companies, are accepting money to talk to analysts and investors about the confidential results of a trial." (Another piece in the Times from August 16 reported that "nearly 10 percent of the nation's 700,000 doctors have signed up as consultants" on investment deals. And, according to a Times editorial, doctors make anywhere from $200 to $1,000 an hour on consulting.)

The Seattle Times reported, after completing its own investigation, that it found "at least 26 cases in which doctors have leaked confidential and critical details of their ongoing drug research to Wall Street firms." Doctors who did the leaking were affiliated with top universities like UCLA and the University of Pennsylvania as well as companies like Citigroup, Smith Barney and Wachovia.

That's shameful, but it's not shocking. After all, doctors have gotten dinners, vacations and even thousands of dollars in fees from drug companies to attend "conferences" and "summits," where they are informed of the benefits of the wonder drug du jour. In 2002, one cardiologist told the Washington Post that Merck sent a limo to pick him up, take him to dinner and included a bottle of champagne for kicks.

The third article that I found really disturbing, "FDA Will Not Release Some Data on Heart Devices" (August 6), illustrates why these abuses have become so rampant: The FDA has abandoned its responsibility to oversee and regulate the drug industry.

As the story puts it: "The Food and Drug Administration said yesterday that it would not release information that it receives annually from the makers of heart devices detailing how often and why products fail." Protecting such data by calling it a corporate "trade secret," the FDA was pulling the plug on the public's right to information.

The Director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, argued in a recent interview that the FDA has become a "formal partner" to drug manufacturers for at least two reasons. First, in 1992, Congress decided that drug companies, not taxpayers, should have to fund the drug review and approval process at the FDA. And so the industry is spending an estimated $350 million this year alone to get its drugs approved, Dr. Wolfe says. Consequently, "Approve now, test later" is the FDA's attitude, Wolfe explained.

The second factor is that Congress has almost totally failed in its responsibility to police the Food and Drug Administration. Committees in Congress used to hold many hearings looking at the FDA's performance, but those days are over. Now, it is up to lone Senators like Chuck Grassley of Iowa to hold the agency's feet to the fire. In a recent floor debate, Grassley said that the agency "is plagued by structural, personnel, cultural and scientific problems." But a lone Senator's voice isn't enough.

In a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, investigative journalist Trudy Lieberman argued that the FDA views the companies it regulates "as clients." That's a fair description. After all, The New England Journal of Medicine reported as early as 2000 that Cox 2 drugs like Vioxx could cause patients to suffer heart attacks, but the FDA refused to force the industry to warn consumers at that time. Similarly, when one safety officer told the FDA's higher-ups that reports had shown that Viagra could lead to the onset of blindness in men, the FDA remained silent. (Thirteen months later, a scientific journal published an article that revealed the problem.)

The FDA also recently rejected the advice of its own advisory panel--which has happened only twice in five decades--that the emergency contraception known as Plan B should be made available to women over the counter. Moreover, the agency failed to warn parents in a timely manner that antidepressants could make kids more likely to commit suicide.

So, what should be done? Dr. Wolfe says that at least four reforms would amount to a good start.

First, he argues that Congress should repeal the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act that "demolished" much of the vigilance that the FDA exerted over the drug industry in previous years. Second, Congress should pass legislation that is being sponsored by senators Dodd and Grassley that will free the Office of Drug Safety from the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. (The FDA has been reluctant to admit problems with medicines once drugs have reached the market. By liberating the Office of Drug Safety from the office that handles the review process, Drug Safety would gain independence, and the FDA might finally begin to warn consumers about drugs that turn out to be unsafe after they've gone on the market.)

Third, more generally, the FDA needs to do a better job of enforcing the law, says Wolfe. In 1998 the FDA stopped 157 illegal prescription drug ads, while in 2004 it stopped only twenty-four illegal ads--an 85 percent decrease in the number of FDA enforcement actions.

Finally, Wolfe believes that if Congress increased the number of hearings it held looking into how the FDA is performing, the FDA would face greater scrutiny and be more likely to protect consumers' health, not the drug industry's profits. Here's hoping Wolfe's sensible ideas take hold.

Comments (105)

1. VIOXX TAKES A HIT, TAKE A PILL.

   VIOXX TAKES A HIT.

   Plaintiff Carol Ernst, center, and her attorneys Randy Moore and Ben Morelli react to the jury's verdict in her favor in her case against Vioxx maker Merck & Co. today in Angleton. Vioxx jury finds Merck liable From staff and wire reports Steve Campbell / Chronicle Attorney Gerry Lowry talks with one of her colleagues on the Vioxx case, attorney Jonathan Skidmore, before today's verdict.

   JURY QUESTIONS

   Ten of the 12 jurors had to answer the following questions in order to reach a verdict. The jury's decision was unanimous.: •

   1. Was there a defect in the marketing of Vioxx at the time it left the possession of Merck & Co., Inc., that was a producing cause of the death of Bob Ernst? Answer: Yes •

   2 . Was there a design defect in Vioxx at the time it left the possession of Merck & Co., Inc. that was a producing cause of the death of Bob Ernst? Answer: Yes •

   3. Did the negligence, if any, of Merck & Co. Inc., proximately cause the death of Bob Ernst? Answer: Yes - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If jurors answer "yes" to questions No. 1, 2 or 3, then they must answer the following. •

   4. What sum of money, if paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Carol Ernst for her damages, if any, resulting from the death of Bob Ernst? Answer separately, in dollars and cents, for damages, if any. •

   a. Pecuniary loss sustained in the past: $100,000 •

   b. Pecuniary loss that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future: $350,000 •

   c. Loss of companionship and society sustained in the past: $2 million •

   d. Loss of companionship and society that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future. $10 million •

   e. Mental anguish sustained in the past. $2 million •

   f. Mental anguish that, in reasonable probability, will be sustained in the future: $10 million -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If jurors answer "yes" to questions No. 1, 2 or 3 and have inserted a sum of money in answer to question No. 4, then jurors will answer the following.

   • 5. Do you find by clear and convincing evidence that the harm to Bob Ernst resulted from malice attributable to Merck & Co., Inc.? Answer: Yes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If jurors answer "yes" to question No. 5, then they will answer the following question. •

   6. What sum of money, if any, should be assessed against Merck & Co. Inc. and awarded to Carol Ernst as exemplary damages for the death of Bob Ernst? $229 million.

   The Brazoria County jury in the nation's first Vioxx-related civil trial has found pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. liable for the death of a man who took the painkiller. Jurors awarded Robert Ernst's widow, Carol, $253.4 million in damages, which is a combination of his lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager, mental anguish, loss of companionship and punitive damages. Carol Ernst began to cry when the verdict was read while her attorneys jumped up and shouted, "Amen!" "Anyone who said they are too small town or won't understand, they are crazy," said her lawyer, Mark Lanier. "They know truth and they know justice." "Merck should come to the table and accept responsibility," Lanier said. The case drew national attention from pharmaceutical companies, lawyers, consumers, stock analysts and arbitragers as a signal of what lies ahead for Merck, which has vowed to fight the more than 4,200 state and federal Vioxx-related lawsuits pending across the country. Merck said it plans to appeal. A seven-man, five-woman jury from a semi-rural county south of Houston deliberated for 10 1/2 hours over two days before blaming the drug for killing Ernst in his sleep in 2001. Jurors rejected Merck's argument that Ernst died of clogged arteries rather than a Vioxx-induced heart attack that led to his fatal arrhythmia.

   Merck response: Jonathan Skidmore, a member of Merck's defense team, said today, "We believe that the plantiff did not meet the standard set by Texas law to prove Vioxx caused Mr. Ernst's death." "There is no reliable scientific evidence that shows Vioxx causes cardiac arrhythmias, which an autopsy showed was the cause of Mr. Ernst's death, along with coronary atherosclerosis." Merck also contends the case did not call for punitive damages. "We believe that we have strong points to raise on appeal and are hopeful that the appeals process will correct the verdict," said Kenneth C. Frazier, senior vice president and general counsel of Merck, in a written statement. "Our appeal is about fundamental rights to a fair trial." The company will base its appeal on: -- Allowing opening testimony to be given to the jury by unqualified experts. -- Allowing opinion testimony that was not based on a reliable, scientific basis as required by Texas law. -- Allowing evidence with no relevance to the issues of the case, which unfairly prejudiced the jury. -- Allowing undisclosed surprise witness and expert testimony contrary to Texas law.

   THE TRIAL • What it's about:

   In the first of thousands of Vioxx cases to go to court, Carol Ernst blames pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co. for the 2001 death of her husband, Robert Ernst. 7/5/05. • The legal teams: A matchup of legal powerhouses. 7/11/05.

   CASES PENDING •

   Texas sues: Merck accused of downplaying dangers of Vioxx. 6/30/05. Other lawsuits involving Vioxx pending against Merck: • 4,275 suits in federal and state courts. • 119 class action cases pending, but none certified. A little more than two hours into their second day of deliberations, lawyers said jurors asked for a replay of testimony from Dr. Maria Araneta, who attributed the 2001 death of Robert Ernst to an irregular heartbeat secondary to clogged arteries. The panel had yet to specify which part it wanted to hear, and any replaying of testimony must take place in open court. Vioxx-maker Merck & Co. used that autopsy to support the company's contention that the painkiller had nothing to do with Robert Ernst's death. Merck pulled the $2.5 billion seller from the market last year after a study showed it could double risk of heart attack or stroke if taken for 18 months or longer, but the company says no studies link Vioxx to arrhythmia, or irregular heartbeat. Araneta, who now works at a hospital in the United Arab Emirates, testified that a blood clot probably caused a heart attack that triggered Ernst's arrhythmia. She said vigorous CPR likely dislodged the clot so she couldn't find it during the autopsy, and his death was too sudden to leave evidence of the heart attack. Merck lost appeals to block jurors from hearing Araneta's testimony during the trial, which was presented via videotaped deposition. Araneta didn't blame Vioxx for causing a heart attack, noting she knew little of the drug in 2001. Other plaintiff's experts blamed the drug. Experts who testified for Merck said Araneta's written conclusions in the autopsy were valid, but her opinions expressed more than four years later were not. The trial that began July 14 was the first of more than 4,200 lawsuits in the nation to go before a jury. The case has drawn national attention as the first test of Merck's legal fate, and analysts have speculated Merck's liability could reach $18 billion. Merck launched Vioxx in 1999 with great fanfare to relieve arthritis and acute pain while cutting risk of stomach bleeding by inhibiting a blood-thinning enzyme. Some 20 million people took Vioxx when it was available to consumers. Lanier asked jurors to award her at least $40 million in damages. He suggested during closing arguments that her mental anguish and loss of companionship damages could reach $229 million or more. Lanier said Merck reaped that amount from Vioxx sales in the four months leading to the February 2002 addition of cardiovascular warnings on the drug's label. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration suggested the changes in October 2001 in light of a 2000 study that showed Vioxx users suffered five times as many heart attacks as those who took the older painkiller, naproxen. In Texas, punitive damages are capped at twice the amount of economic damages - lost pay - and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship. Non-economic damages have no limit in Texas except in medical malpractice cases, which doesn't apply to the Ernst case. Shares of Merck & Co. fell $1.01, or 3.3 percent, to $29.40 in afternoon trading on the New York Stock Exchange after the verdict.

   WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE VERDICT? HOW WILL AFFECT MERCK AND PFIZER, THE MAKER OF CELEBREX? THIS IS NOT A "WONDERFUL MOMENT" FOR THESE DRUG COMPANIES.

   Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

   www.freedompost.typepad.com

   www.freedompost.net

   Posted by msf31538 at 08/19/2005 @ 5:29pm

2. And Pharma and their bought congressmen don't want us to buy brand name medicines made overseas or from Canada. Something about safety.

   Posted by proudlib at 08/19/2005 @ 9:52pm

3. hmmmm

   Personally, i avoid medicines of any kind as much as possible.

   But I do realize that is not a realistic option for many people.

   In my experience, and I work for a company that falls under FDA oversight, they are by far the most difficult of any regulatory agency to deal with. The FDA is not your friend, if you are in the business.

   I suppose, when they have approved a drug, that they go through denial when there is a problem with it.

   Nobody likes to be wrong. And if they reverse themselves often, it damages their credibility.

   Besides, pulling drugs out of circulation can be devastating.

   Can you imagine, if they pulled valium?

   2 million americans going through the DTs?

   Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:54pm

4. The thing about companies that sell medical goods is, most of the people who work at them are "nice" people, who want to "help" people.

   It is a different culture.

   Very politically correct. Wouldn't want to offend anyone. (My continued survival is marvelous in the eyes of many)

   Nobody yells or uses bad language, either.

   Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 9:58pm

5. JONB, I guess things have changed at the FDA since the 80's, I don't know. But the approval process for Aspartame during the Reagan administration has to be one of the most outrageous corruptions of the FDA in history.

   Katrina, this is post number 6. Looks like this topic doesn't have much traction with the bloggers....

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 08/19/2005 @ 10:48pm

6. I was noticing that. (no traction)

   I think it depends on who the manufacturer is.

   Everything about government is political.

   Posted by jonb at 08/19/2005 @ 11:08pm

7. thanks to the blood thirsty trial lawyers, the 4th largest money donator of all time, the teachers unions and public employees unions are higher, all to the democrats, now possably millions of peple that benefitted greatly from vioxx for relieving pain will now be denied this drug because of the few that had an allergic reaction to it. You are aware people have died from aspirin, from allergic reaction to it.Maybe you will have it your way, no more drug breakthru's, cause a tiny percentage may have a bad reaction to it while the vast majority people can take it and help. Thank you leftists, you humanitarians you.The trial lawyers love ya.

   Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 4:11pm

8. Ben K,

   People like you are all the same: you gripe about lawyers yet, golly gee, when someone injures you in a car accident, what's the first thing you do -- call a lawyer! You get seriously injured at work due to blatant company malfeasance so you can't ever work again. What do you do? That's right -- call a lawyer! And if your spouse had died from Vioxx, what would you have done? That's right -- call a lawyer!

   Spare us your blatant hypocrisy.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 5:05pm

9. If my spouse died, every Dr will tell you there are risks,everybody's body reacts differently.That's why trial lawyers try to hand pick thier juries, they try to find people like you. You can do all the research in the world, there is no drug that is 100% safe, there isn't.You are aware in the socialist countries their pharmacuticals are protected from lawsuits?You can't sue them.Yopu didnt address the fact that you and your lawyer friends just denied to all the millions of people that depend ont his drug to get them thru the dat this drug, congrats on your anti capitolist bullshit. you just made their lives more difficult, you should be proud.

   Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 5:11pm

10. You're dodging what I put before you: That you, if your spouse had died from Vioxx, would have been high-tailing it to a lawyer's office quicker than you could say Perry Mason.

    Hypocrite.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 5:39pm

11. Ben K,

    By the way, it's highly amusing how you praise socialist countries yet spout a pro-capitalist quip at the end.

    (rolls eyes)

    And, by the way, yes, there are socialist countries where you can't sue a company, but you're leaving something out: there's a government fund for victims of company malfeasance. And it's funded by -- you guessed it! -- taxpayer dollars. So, how about a proposal: I'll favor prohibiting company lawsuits as long as you favor a tax increase to fill the coffers of this fund. Hello? Hello? Yeah, I thought that would sen shivers down your spine.

    Hypocrite.

    Freiheit,

    Care to give your word right here and now that if your spouse died from Vioxx that you wouldn't be high-tailing it to John Edwards' law office if he were the only one who could take your case? Yeah, that's what I thought.

    Hypocrite.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 6:36pm

12. do they give the victons millions of dollars?and the socialists countries protect the private companies from huge ass awards, isnt it the lefties like you who keep telling us how wonderful europe is?you want us to be more like europe. what a hypocrit.whatr is the limit to the awards?in canada it isnt 245 M, and you cant address the fact that there is no drug that is 100% safe, never will be.this is a rediculous amount that will not stand, the trial lawyers did very well, they found a bunch of anti capitolist democrats to be the jury.will you be happy when we have no pharmicutical companies left? you think sueing them into the ground over things that are unprevetable will help you to be able to nationalize the industry, boy that would be good, just as good as the public schools are.want to call people hyprocrit? how about the democrats at the DNC last year who cheered after kerry promised them all the government services in the world, then promised a tax cut,and all the democrats cheered, what a bunch of hypocrits. you lefties are quite conservative on tax day aren't you.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 6:57pm

13. Freheit,

    OK, apparently I have to ask these straight out, and they require only a Yes or No answer, so, please, no creative wordings to avoid answering. One, if your spouse died of Vioxx, would you be seeking legal representation to sue the company? Two, if you did decide to sue, and John Edwards were the only lawyer who could take your case, would you retain his services or not, knowing full well that if you didn't then you couldn't sue?

    Ben K,

    You continue to avoid what I've pointed out here, so I'll just do the same as I did with Freiheit: ask you a question that requires only a Yes or No answer.

    If your spouse died from Vioxx, would you seek legal representation to sue the company that made it?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 7:31pm

14. Oh, Ben K, another question since you failed to address this above:

    Since you praised this aspect of socialist countries, would you be in favor of a tax increase for a government victims-compensation fund in exchange for a ban in the U.S. of people being able to sue companies?

    Yes. Or. No.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 7:36pm

15. i support limits on lawsuits 2- 5M max,and only if the company did something wrong, which in this case there isnt. i thought you lefties said how wonderful europe is, sounds like the left's defintion if fascism, when corporations and governments merge!oh my!looks like europe is fascist.you havent addressed the fact that there isnt any drug that is 100% safe. you havent answered the question what about the millions of people that take vioxx and nothing happens to them and itt is a wonder drug for them? you screwed them and of course you wont answer that one.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 8:45pm

16. Kevin,

    I wouldn't have sued. First of all, I never take prescription drugs. If you take a prescription drug, by its' very nature you are adding a health risk. Secondly, I have a genuine distaste for lawyers. I always appreciated the humor of Danny Devito's character in War of the Roses when he said: "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!"

    I used a lawyer on 2 occasions; once in a divorce and I fired the lawyer for incompetence. Did better on my own. The second time was for a bankruptcy filing to help a friend. He was cheap but screwed up a few things because of his ADHD.

    I went through being sued in a major lawsuit over a business sale. I was sued for a 7 figure sum. I did not use a lawyer and was dismissed from the plaintiffs action.

    I have seen too many instances where sympathetic juries have gone by their emotions rather than make a factual deliberation. I agree with Bush on serious tort reform.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/20/2005 @ 8:46pm

17. See, Ben K? Love Liberty answered the question right from the get-go. And I'll gladly answer your question as soon as you answer the two I've put before you:

    1. If your spouse died from Vioxx, would you seek legal representation to sue the company that made it?

    Yes or No?

    2. Since you praised this aspect of socialist countries, would you be in favor of a tax increase for a government victims-compensation fund in exchange for a ban in the U.S. of people being able to sue companies?

    Yes or No?

    As to these:

    you havent addressed the fact that there isnt any drug that is 100% safe.

    Need I? I've never written that they are 100% safe. So let me spell it out: There isn't any drug that's 100% safe. In fact, there isn't any product in America that's 100% safe. Yet you wrote above that you approve of lawsuits with a "2- 5M max", so, golly gee, you apparently approve of lawsuits in this range, so you apparently approve of lawsuits of this type, right?

    you havent answered the question what about the millions of people that take vioxx and nothing happens to them and itt is a wonder drug for them?

    I'm sorry. That's a statement, not a question. Please form a question from that and I'll answer it.

    you screwed them and of course you wont answer that one.

    I'm sorry, I'm in Missoula, Montana and therefore could not have served on the jury. So how exactly did I screw them?

    the trial lawyers did very well, they found a bunch of anti capitolist democrats to be the jury.

    Please provide a link where it states that all of the members on the jury were Democrats. If you can't, then obviously your statement above is pure hot air. And you also might want to check the political affiliation of the woman who sued. This is in Texas. Wanna bet your life with 100% certainty that she isn't a Republican? (Note: I'm a native Texan, and here's a news flash for ya -- plenty of Republicans in the state sue as well as collect welfare.)

    K

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 9:42pm

18. LL,

    Thanks for answering the question; I believe you.

    Freiheit,

    Here's an equally stupid question, Kevin. If the CEO of a drug company dies from taking a competitors prescription drug. Based on loss of potential income, should his widow receive 8 billion dollars?!

    No. And if you'll notice, I never wrote in this blog that I approved of the $253 million settlement. I think there should be a reasonable cap. What I was advocating was a citizen's right to sue a company, which you're against and which 'ol Ben flip-flopped by being against but apparently now isn't against it in light of his 3-5-mil max reply.

    And thank you for answering the question. See, Ben K, there are two real men in this blog who don't whimper and hide from questions.

    And no, I would not hire John Edwards to be my lawyer either. Or president.

    Big surprise!

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 9:52pm

19. Oh, and Freiheit, sorry I mistakenly called you a hypocrite. I was obviously wrong.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 10:09pm

20. I believe that drug companies must be held accountable, but $253 million?!?! Please. The only real winners are the trial lawyers who will get a major cut of the settlement.

    There is nothing wrong with taking prescription medicine. If there wasn't any, life expectancies would be much lower than they are now. The only people who say you shouldn't take any, are healthy people who don't need any. Let's see if they say the same thing when they are older.

    One other thing. Not only does the U.S. not want cheap drugs coming in from Canada, but Canada doesn't want them coming into the U.S. either. They don't want the added demand pushing up prices.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/20/2005 @ 10:09pm

21. I know there is a lot of antipathy toward socialized medicine...however, the number don't lie. The US has the highest health expenditures per capita in the entire world, yet we place "middle of the pack" in nearly all health categories. Sadly in child deaths and maltreatment we are among the worst in the world. Furthermore, many nations with national health care systems have better general health and longer life spans on average....not by a year of two but by a decade. see: http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Health [nationmaster.com]

    I am not saying that these nations' health system be copied, or even used as a model...but for pities' sake is our hubris so profound that we can't look at objective data and learn a damned thing from it?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2005 @ 10:12pm

22. i answered your question, and you dont like it. what about the millions of people who depended on vioxx to get them thru the day?what do you tell them?no i dont support tax payer funded settlements, i support caps, and in this case i believe merck did nothing wrong.people died from viaga, should we ban viagra?

    Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 10:18pm

23. Most money that is spent on healthcare in the U.S., is spent on end of life care. If there was nationalized healthcare, more money would be spent on preventative care, which is better in the long run. Besides, it would free companies to invest more in their businesses.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 08/20/2005 @ 10:19pm

24. if it was nationalized, which means higher taxes on everyone, they just euthanize the elderly. hell, germany's finance minister blamed fat people for germany's exceeding the EU's debt limit.they want to tax big mac's, make you conform to what the elitists think you should have to eat because the state is in charge of health care. wouldnt that be lovely?

    Posted by Ben K at 08/20/2005 @ 10:30pm

25. Ben K...you don't get it. If we all paid a flat "health tax" at a much smaller rate than the massive payola going to the insurance industry, we'd all be better off.

    And yeah, we can to an extent, blame lifestyle for aspects of health costs. People who choose to snarf down buckets of fried chicken and french fries, or smoke like chimneys, or shoot drugs and wind up w/ HepC or AIDs, ought to pay a larger premium than someone who exercises and eats tofu burgers or some such...

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2005 @ 10:39pm

26. Hell, lets go to the ancient Chinese model of putting physicians on retainers....pay them only while we are healthy. If we get sick, then they stop getting paid. Talk about incentive for preventative care!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 08/20/2005 @ 10:41pm

27. i answered your question, and you dont like it.

    I asked you 2 questions, not 1, and you haven't answered either one, as everyonein this blog can see. C'mon, LL and Freiheit did; try to be a man about it like them.

    what about the millions of people who depended on vioxx to get them thru the day? what do you tell them?

    Uh, have their doctor prescribe them a drug that hasn't killed people?

    no i dont support tax payer funded settlements

    I didn't ask you about settlements. I asked since you lauded the no-sue rule in socialist countries if you'd support having our taxes raised to pay for a government fund to compensate the victims or their families. If you don't, then you're being hypocritical in light of your support for this in other countries.

    i support caps

    So do I.

    and in this case i believe merck did nothing wrong.

    Pray tell, how did Merck do noting wrong. Wow us with details. Or do we just automatically stick up for Big Bidness at the expense of people's lives?

    people died from viaga, should we ban viagra?

    If a comprehensive study concludes that we should, then, yeah.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 10:46pm

28. LOC,

    And yeah, we can to an extent, blame lifestyle for aspects of health costs. People who choose to snarf down buckets of fried chicken and french fries, or smoke like chimneys, or shoot drugs and wind up w/ HepC or AIDs, ought to pay a larger premium than someone who exercises and eats tofu burgers or some such...

    Well, sadly, this should apply to medical-malpractice insurance, yet it isn't. Instead of only at-fault doctors having their rates raised, the insurance companies raise rates for all doctors, which unfairly penalizes them. Imagine if your next-door neighbor was at fault in a car accident and not only did his car insurance get raised but yours, too.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 10:51pm

29. Nah, Freiheit, you'd written nothing for me to draw that conclusion. It's just that there are so many in this country who decry lawsuits yet who'd be suing if they were ever on the receiving end of malfeasance. I'm reminded of that episode of "Married With Children..." where Bud gets in a car accident, and Al, fearing the guy Bud hit is going to sue, says, "That's the problem with this country. Everyone wants to sue.", but when Bud says that it was the guy who hit him, Al exclaims, "We're suing!".

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/20/2005 @ 11:13pm

30. It's no secret that Big Pharma is hugely corrupt and ethically out-to-lunch. Yet the righty reactionaries lurking here and their fellow travellers in Red State Nation see Big Pharma as a victim. That these intelligent (if usually poorly educated) people are so swayed by drug companies' transparently mendacious propaganda is a tremendous triumph for the Big Pharma PR depts. Regardless of scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal, regardless of books and articles by the some of the most respected medical professionals in the world (authors and titles upon request) documenting beyond any shadow of a doubt the greed and callousness of the bottom-line worshippers who run the drug conglomerates, the reactionaries in their really profound ignorance (not to mention masochism) simply see no evil. I live in central North Carolina which hosts pharmaceutical research facilities for most of the major drug companies. I know dozens of people who do the day to day research. They sincerely feel that they are dedicating their lives to helping people. But every last one of them I've spoken to feels conflicted about the company he or she works for. Many have left for public sector research jobs because the blatant greed that drives the companies creates such excruciating moral dilemmas for the people who do the actual work (as opposed to the paper-shufflers who drive corporate policy). I wish the reactionaries who admire Big Pharma so much would make an effort to talk to these people; they might benefit from losing their blinders.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 08/20/2005 @ 11:19pm

31. The Vioxx decision has no winners: money will not bring the people back who had a reaction to the drug----the decision by the jury will discourage Pharma Companies in developing new and better drugs. I don't think any manufactured drug is 100% safe. Even asprin can cause problems. I find it quite strange that Katrina finds such joy in this decision. It looks more and more like the extreme left won't be happy until all corporations are destroyed. Of course this is the aim of most socialist, so I shouldn't be so surprised. Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/20/2005 @ 11:49pm

32. And something that the drug industry falsely pushes: that verdicts like this hinder their budgets for R&D (Research and Development). They spend far more on advertising and marketing than they do on R&D. Also, it's actually taxpayer-funded places like universities and the National Institutes of Health that "discover" the majority of the new medications; Big Pharma merely buys the licenses to these drugs to sell them. And also keep in mind the insurance industry raising all doctors' malpractice-insurance rates, even those who have never been found at fault. When you hear doctors griping about their rates going up, keep in mind that they're being penalized for other doctors' mistakes, which is the doing of the insurance industry. Do I think there's abuse from some trial lawyers? Of course. And if you'll remember John Edwards during the V.P debate said he and Kerry backed a three-strikes-and-you're-out policy for lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits (though, admittedly, they didn't propose a cap on damages, I'll freely admit). But, contrary to what Bush & Co. have continually pushed, the insurance industry is even more at fault. You want to hold all parties accountable, then don't exclude Big Bidness from the equation.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:01am

33. Len,

    I pose the same question to you that I posed to others: If your spouse died from Vioxx, truthfully, would you have sued or just said, "Oh, well, no drug's 100% safe."?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:04am

34. Kevin--- If my wife died from Vioxx, after she knew that there was a small risk of it causing problems, I would not sue.---Len

    Posted by Len Mosse at 08/21/2005 @ 12:15am

35. Thank you for your up-front answer.

    Hey, Ben K, here's another real man who hasn't dodged the question. Still waiting for your two answers to the two questions I asked you.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:20am

36. kevin i answered yours, you didnt answer mine. what about all the millions that benefit from the drug?what do you do with them. and while your at it you can tellme what merck did that was so evil.and our system doesn punish smokers and overweight people, they pay higher premiums, but you have no problem forcing people to eat whay you think they should, hopefully you will never be in charge.they left supprts these bigus lawsuits for one reason and one reason only, to createa crisis that will result in nationalization.a bunch of overpaid union bearocrats running the pharmicutical industry, boy wouldnt that be wonderful.they sure dont save us any money in eductaion, which costs the taxpayer more than the military, and the private sector does it at half price.what about these people you just screwed kevin?what you do about them now that they can't get what they need?and what is the majical preventative health care?i cant count one one hjand how many times i've been to a doctors office in the last 10 years.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 12:32am

37. Kevin

    I'm actually curious.

    You say:

    They spend far more on advertising and marketing than they do on R&D.

    and

    actually taxpayer-funded places like universities and the National Institutes of Health that "discover" the majority of the new medications; Big Pharma merely buys the licenses to these drugs to sell them.

    I hadn't noticed that.

    In fact, as someone who works on the development side of the medical industry, my experience has been the opposite.

    Any examples of this?

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 12:57am

38. JONB:

    1. About drug companies spending more on marketing then on research: Simply look at the SEC fillings of the large pharma companies. (Stick to the yearly reports... they are easier to read than the quarterly. You can get them all online at FreeEdgar.com.) Especially look for phrases like "research and marketing devlopment costs". Here's what you will find. On average only 20%, yes you read it, 20% of the large Parama Budgets goes toward "Research and market development costs". This 20% not only includes scientific R+D costs, but also marketing R+D costs. The rest (80%) is corporate overhead (which is justified) and marketing (which is not). It is unbelievable.

    2. I am a Phd research scientist in BioPhysics, and see this everyday. The majority of the science that goes into a new drug comes from public-funded research. The science used by the drug companies comes from scientists scrounging to get grants (I am not complaining, as I and most other scientists love what we do). But we FREELY and publicaly share our results in refereed scientific journals. Newton, Boltzmann, Einstein, Fermi, Debye et all get no royalties from their work. The backbone of scientific research is this free sharing of information. The drug companies then take advantage of this system, grab the information from the pool of scientific knowledge and make billions. Now please allow me to make this clear: the drug companies absolutely deserve to make a profit. There is alot of work/risk in taking science and making it into a usable product. Here is my major problem: The drug companies give very little back to the public knowledge pool. Most research they sponser is not allowed to be shared publicly (it get classified as "trade secrets"). And the drug companies give little back to the governement organizations that pay for most of the non-military research: the NSF (national science foundation) and NIH (national inst. of health). The companies, in effect, get to use other people's work and give nothing back the system.

    Adam

    Posted by junklobster at 08/21/2005 @ 01:52am

39. tufts university study center for cost of research and develpment per drug that reacheds the market, this is by the drug companies,funded by the drug companies, is 862 million. most breakthroughs overwehlmingly come from the US.thats not incl;uding the one that fail, which is about a 95% range of all drugs tested. all i hear in here is a bunch of complaining about how much a business makes, but the sky is the limit for trial lawyers. how about you complain about that?and how about those people denied vioxx that was the drug they needed?

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 02:38am

40. Ben K.:

    "tufts university study center for cost of research and develpment per drug that reacheds the market, this is by the drug companies,funded by the drug companies, is 862 million."

    Those statistics are based on drug industry PR handouts. Drug companies have REFUSED for more than 50 years to open their books to justify these hilarious claims. No serious objective observer of the drug industry takes these phantom numbers seriously any more. Like WMD's and the "Death Tax," they exist purely to soothe Red State reactionaries.

    All you have to do is ask yourself one question: if the drug industry is under such pressure from the cost of R&D, why is it that the big conglomerates brag about record profits year after year. You can't have it both ways.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 08/21/2005 @ 12:08pm

41. Ben,

    Continue to dodge the questions I put before you, boy. It isn't going unnoticed, believe me. As for this:

    a bunch of overpaid union bearocrats running the pharmicutical industry

    (stifles laughter)

    Oh, so you have no problem with overpaid cads running the pharmaceutical industry, which cut a deal with Republicans in that new Medicare bill which specifically prohibits the government from negotiating lower bulk prices, which other countries (like the socialized ones you praised at the top).

    most breakthroughs overwehlmingly come from the US.thats not incl;uding the one that fail, which is about a 95% range of all drugs tested.

    No one's disputing that the majority of the breakthroughs come from the U.S., but that the majority of the breakthroughs come from research done in nonprofit academic medical centers and the National Institutes of Health. And this interesting point was made in an article at The New Republic:

    "And this industry is hardly a model of free enterprise. It may be free to decide what drugs to develop and to set its own prices, but its lifeblood is government-granted monopolies -- in the form of patents and FDA-approved exclusive marketing rights. Drug companies apparently see no contradiction in manupulating existing laws and regulations to stave off competition from generic and foreign manufacturers and lobbying for even more governmental protections while at the same time using free-market rhetoric to demand less government involvement in the pricing and the marketing of drugs."

    all i hear in here is a bunch of complaining about how much a business makes

    That's all you may hear -- no doubt, being that you're probably a die-hard Limbaugh listener (and I'll refrain from going into Limbaugh's hypocrisy in illegally abusing drugs.

    but the sky is the limit for trial lawyers. how about you complain about that?

    Compare a trial lawyer's bank account with that of a CEO's and the top executives' of a drug company, and just see who's got the bigger one. Wanna bet your life that the lawyer's is bigger? Only if you're suicidal. And some interesting facts for ya:

    A 2002 report by Public Citizen stated that only 5% of all doctors are responsible for nearly 50% of the money paid out in malpractice awards yearly. Yet these insurance companies dopn't raise the rates on these troublesome doctors. Rather, they raise premiums for all doctors across the board.

    The General Accounting Office estimated that insurance carriers raise rates whenever their investment portfolios decline. And even the liability-insurance industry admits that half the money doctors and hospitals pay as premiums, less than 50% is used to pay malpractice victims.

    The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office "found no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending". And when it compared per-capita health spending in states

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:29pm

42. (continuation of previos post)

    ...with liability restrictions to states without the restrictions, it "found no statistically significant difference".

    So it's the drug industry and the insurance companies whom you need to direct your rage at. But, hey, they're Big Bidness, and we all know good 'ol BB is always 100% blameless, right?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 12:32pm

43. Vioxx reduces pain and inflammation, it improves 'the quality of life' - but no one will die as a direct result of NOT taking it, regardless of all the hype. There are other alternatives to this drug.

    -----------------

    The drug industry is a FOR PROFIT industry.

    If operating in a truly 'moral and humanist fashion', it should be able to work in conjunction with both the realm of the profit motive and it's SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

    But, as examples have shown, time and again, it is being driven by stock prices and the greed of investors. The profit motive has clearly trumped any sense of social responsibility in most of these companies.

    In a free society, laws and regulation cannot be passed that will FORCE drug companies to do anything against their for-profit paradigm, even if we wanted them to.

    For those who follow the news, we hear that the drug industry simply is not interested in making anti-terror drug stockpiles, they are not interested in making drugs to fight 'bird flu'.

    Think about it: you are in business, you want to make a profit. You have stockholders that demand an ROI.

    Are you going to spend your R&D$ on long term non-fatal debilitating conditions, arthritis, diabetes, obesity .. to ensure customers are around for a long time to spend thousands on your output?

    - or -

    Spend your R&D$ on: short term fatal conditions like agressive cancer, congestive heart failure.

    This is where College and University funded basic and advanced research studies are crucial, and this is exactly what is being cut back by the Bush Administration {and sadly, as well as other Western EU countries as well}.

    The best solution for society at large would be to take the pharma industry totally out of the publicly traded profit making sphere.

    Of corse, it is very unlikely for this to happen, because it's 'socialism'.

    Put whatever label you want on it.

    It's the right solution.

    Posted by shpilk at 08/21/2005 @ 12:41pm

44. By the way, the $253 million award will be reduced anyway under Texas law, which members of the jury obviously knew.

    Oh, and Ben K, you were quite adamant about Merck not being at fault here. I asked you to explain why but, of course, you've neglected to do so. I know, I know; I grew up in a Republican household, and you get it beat into your head that Big Bidness is never to blame, that they're a deity to be unconditionally worshipped. So I'm not surprised you haven't seen fit to back up what you write.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 1:01pm

45. you are saying merck did something wrong, you and katrina didnt make a case, her article doesnt have anthing specific. should we ban viagra?people died from that.i answered allyour pathetic questions, and you have yet to answer any of mine. trial lawyers association is the 4th largest donator of all time.can someone tell me what industry isnt for profit?education is, all the beaurocrats making millions, padding their wallets, inefficient. the welfare state, 72% is for administration costs, there is no private charity that could ever dso that. they advertise how much goes to the people you are trying to help usually 80 - 90%.all the nationalists just want to line their pockets, and you are to foolish to see that their is money motive bigtime on the left's side of the agruement.gov employees and beaurocrats profit quite handsomely from the welfare education indstrial complex.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 1:47pm

46. you are saying merck did something wrong

    No, I'm saying the jury determined Merck did something wrong, genius.

    you and katrina didnt make a case, her article doesnt have anthing specific.

    (groan)

    Well, you see, we let the plaintiff's lawyer make the case. That's usually how things like this go. But you, not being a lawyer yet hell-bent in averring Merck wasn't at fault, haven't made your case, Psuedo Counselor.

    should we ban viagra? people died from that.

    Already answered that above.

    i answered allyour pathetic questions

    Readers of this blog can clearly see that your pathetic self didn't.

    and you have yet to answer any of mine.

    See above; I have. Limbaugh's trained you well in the art of nonsensicalness.

    trial lawyers association is the 4th largest donator of all time.

    And the first 3? Wanna bet your life the pharmaceutical industry isn't in there? It's no secret that as soon as Bush won in '04, pharmaceutical stocks went back up.

    can someone tell me what industry isnt for profit?

    Perhaps you should, since nobody in this blog stated such a thing.

    education is, all the beaurocrats making millions, padding their wallets, inefficient.

    I agree. And these consist of both Democrats and Republicans.

    the welfare state

    That would include corporate welfare, right? You know, like in the latest energy bill, that gives tax breaks to industries that are now making record profits.

    72% is for administration costs, there is no private charity that could ever dso that.

    You're griping about high administrative costs when high administrative costs run high in the pharmaceutical industry, too. Glad to know you're not setting a double standard here.

    they advertise how much goes to the people you are trying to help usually 80 - 90%.

    (yawn)

    Same with the drug industry. But that's OK, right, even when they try to fool people into believing the majority of their costs are for R&D.

    all the nationalists just want to line their pockets, and you are to foolish to see that their is money motive bigtime on the left's side of the agruement.gov employees and beaurocrats profit quite handsomely from the welfare education indstrial complex.

    Hmmm, yet I'm guessing you had no problem going to public schools, you welfare hog. And if you're so against lots of government employees, you should note that Clinton, unlike Reagan and the Bushes, actually decreased the size of government when he was in office -- as well as, as opposed to Reagan and Bush, Sr. and Bush, Jr. after his first term, leaving a surplus and not a deficit. Also, under Bush, Jr. during his first term, non-defense federal spending increased 36% and he hasn't vetoed so much as a single spending bill. Boy, that just reeks of "small government", huh?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 2:25pm

47. Okay, everyone. Time to stop wasting time answering Ben K. Please read his last sputtering, goofy post. Why is it that Red State reactionaries always fall back on 1950's John Birch blithering? Rush L. was asked last week why he objected to environmentalists. "Because they're communists and socialists." He said it on his radio show, I swear. And now Ben K. writes: "can someone tell me what industry isnt for profit?education is, all the beaurocrats making millions, padding their wallets, inefficient. the welfare state, 72% is for administration costs, there is no private charity that could ever dso that." Got that? The public education system is somehow evil but Big Pharma is a victim. That's a real conversation-stopper. Next thing you know, he'll be saying: "I have in my hand a list..."

    Posted by bookmanjb at 08/21/2005 @ 3:09pm

48. the top dontators are unions and trial lawyers, not business.andd who does the gov employee unions and teachers unions support? the democrats.here the 1st 3 since you admited you dont know, #1 federation of federal, state and municple employees, #2 national association of realtors, # 3 NEA, #4 trial lawyers.you people constantly complain the the pharmiceutcal industry is for profit like that is a bad thing, but everthing is for profit.so why do you complain only about them?can you tell me what goverment program the left has said doesnt need a budget cut please? all i hear them do is complain that bush isnt spending enough. the only thing clinton cut was the CIA and military, and you dems keep trying to get credit for all the things that newt forced down clinton's throat. remeber welfare reform? all the left said we were going to kill children.there is no industry that 72% is for administative costs like the welfare state which the left insists on having.you missed my point, private chatiries advertise how much of your donation goes to the folks you are trying to help, has nothing to do with industry, i was making a comparison of private sector charity to public welfare, which is a hands down win for private sector.there is no where that public run monopolies have done anything more effiecient than private. europe is already privatizing their power grids.according to the lefties, evil merck didnt do enopugh r&d on vioxx,and their proof is someone died. well that can be said for just about any drug put out on the market.you just pathetic kevin, and you and katrina are good examples of why the left is in the minority, and it will get worse for you before it gets better, if it ever does.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 3:11pm

49. for your own info, bush is cutting, which the left hates,to sharply reduce 150 federal programs, saving 20 billion.12 federal agencies will have there budgets cut,which will save 137 Billion over the next 10 years.you can go into all kinds of lefty websites, including this one at the nation, which complain about the evil bush cuts in social spending.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 3:21pm

50. (snore)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 3:51pm

51. Ben K, you sound as though you think Big Pharma is a candiate for sainthood. I guess you haven't heard of how they have taught pharmasict how to bilk the state in their Medicare plans (at least hear in Texas they do). Yeah, let's charge the state over 1,000% markup on drugs, if we can get away with it...why not!

    Oh and the, "we can't trust that Canadian drugs are safe" bit we get from Washington...please. Some of those drugs are made in the UNITED STATES!! How is it that a drug exported to Canada and then resold back into the states be un-trustworthy?! And talk about the party of "states rights," the Bush administration is going to go to war with states that have the balls to tell Washington to butt out because they want to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. I guess the "states rights" card is only convinient when used on certain issues (see gay marriage, education, etc...of course, those too are becoming the national government's territory now that the righties have taken over).

    Ben K...I sincerely hope you never find yourself at the mercy of Medicare, Medicaid other state/national funded healthcare anytime soon. Its probably pretty easy to be sympathetic to Big Pharma as long as you have a job that provides good healthcare benefits. If, heaven forbid, you were to fall on your luck, you might re-think your previous stance.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/21/2005 @ 4:36pm

52. Bush isn't cutting domestic programs because he hates big government, he's cutting to pay for his emperial occupation forces. The Death Star isn't paid for by monopoly money you know.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/21/2005 @ 4:39pm

53. I saw a previous poster say he wouldn't sue a drug maker is their loved on died. Perhaps so. The wife in the Vioxx trial said the only reason she sued Merck was because the CEO simply refused to admit they made a mistake. If he would just have admitted it, she wouldn't have sued. (Of course, his admission would have been used against him in further cases, but still...that's all that poor lady wanted. An apology. Just like another poor lady in Crawford...just an explaination and an apology. Seems some strong women out there are give the far right fits).

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/21/2005 @ 4:43pm

54. Big Pharma and Big Medicine and Big Insurance. Many jobs. BP and BM seek to relieve/eradicate unpleasant and dangerous symptomologies "in their policy holders." BI's mission is to enhance "peace of mind" and reduce individual/family "policy holders" costs by spreading the risk (using actuarial tables) among all their policy holders.

    Big Government insists BI perform the last "social function" so as to maintain our commomweal chain of security, as it were, keeping the "weakest (unhealthiest) policy holder as "covered" and "safe" as the healthiest. There's an essential unfairness here, but which, through, "safety in numbers" (actuarial tables/quantification of risk), all policy holders agree to.

    All policy holders are "paying to play," so to speak, at this "so-called life," as it were.

    We'd be better off incentivizing good health at each stage of the normal (careful with that term!) life span, than in our current set-up of throwing money/cures at problems/symptomology.

    My father's rolling over in his grave, with me writing this. He always said he "believed in insurance." He was also, not uncoincidentally a "warrior" risk taker (i.e. alcoholic).

    I'll quote Bertholt Brecht as my final word here: "we can't legislate morality."

    Have a great, low risk evening,

    LAWMAN

    Posted by lewwelge at 08/21/2005 @ 5:46pm

55. Yeah, and notice how the uranium-Niger claim isn't in there. Just a day or two after Bush cited it in his State of the Union address, this supposedly damning piece of "intel" doesn't make the cut. Hmmm.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 5:58pm

56. Frankgrits,

    Unfortunately that will probably conflict with most of the garbage TV shows out there (Desperate Housewives, or take your pick of raunchy reality TV). I've seen study results that indicate Red Staters are the primary audience for this type of TV. Red Staters: "This nation is in a moral crisis...as illustrated by my favorite TV shows!!"

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/21/2005 @ 6:01pm

57. if you want to talk about wmd's in iraq then you can explain the 500 tons of natural uranium we found the nation never reported.of course once a patent runs out, everyone makes the drug. canada health care system is waiting lines and billions in debt, india is offering to the UK reisdent tripps so they can get medical care because of the waiting lines. since as usual you always try to play folow the money, when democrats get elected they give big raises to state workers, enhance legislation so lawsuits are easier to file, which sky is the limit awards of course, and of course more tax increases l to line the pockets of the education industrial complex.anti capitolist ward churchill makes a cool 100K for his important services to society, all at tax payer expense.i guess kevin's no response is that he is ok that the welfare state is a primary example of government monopoly, 72% consumed by administration costs. typical lefty, must work for the government like most lefties do.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 7:10pm

58. if you want to talk about wmd's in iraq then you can explain the 500 tons of natural uranium we found the nation never reported.

    Uh, it was actually 1.8 tons, not 500 tons, genius. And it was either partially-enriched and non-enriched; only fully-enriched uranium is suitable for nuclear-weapon purpose. And being that Hussein's enrichment facility was destroyed by U.N. inspectors in '95 (which consisted of Republican Scott Ritter, who forgoed blind political-party allegience by criticizing Bush & Co. over their exaggerations of the "intel"), there was no way to do any more enriching. This also punches a logic loophole in the claim that Hussein sought to purchase uranium in Niger recently, since he already had 1.8 tons of it and had no way to enrich it. If you had 1.8 tons of bullets and no gun to fire them out of, would you be seeking more bullets? Don't think so.

    i guess kevin's no response is that he is ok that the welfare state is a primary example of government monopoly, 72% consumed by administration costs. typical lefty, must work for the government like most lefties do.

    Well, Reagan and the two Bushes are the ones who are apparently OK with this being that the size of government grew under them while it shrunk under Clinton. Keep ignoring inconvenient facts like this, genius.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 7:32pm

59. Once in a while, a Red State reactionary comes to these fora and makes a cogent argument with which many of us respectfully disagree. But in his posts, Ben K. is pulling the tiredest old dustbunnies out of the loony right's dumpster. Can we agree to ignore him and just let him rant; that's all he wants to do in any case.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 08/21/2005 @ 7:38pm

60. you like to play follow the money, the old dusty and intellectually empty arguement, and i can play that too. most big money donations go tot he democrats not the republicans.and it is the nation, and its readers that keep trying to sell government monopoly is themost efficient way to the people, and it is easy to point out its the market , private sector competition, not gov monopoly is most efficient.so all you are left to is whining about how much an industry makes, and then i will point out how much the institutions you love and cherish so much is for profit and quite a large one at that.and it was 500 tons on NATURAL uranium, not the 2 tons of weaponized uranium. but since you brought up iraq, i would like an explantion of clinton and the UN's failure to get inspectors back in iraq, the biggest violation of the cease fire agreement. all you on the left keep trying to play monday morning QB, even though uranium has been found. please explain to me the no inspectors that clintoon and kofi allowed from 1998 -2001. it was GWB and sending 200,000 + troops over there just to get them back in,i guess thats just another omission you dont get to read here at the nation. dont worry, i'll remind you. guess your ok with the massive waste in welfare from yourr last reply.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 7:58pm

61. (snore)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:09pm

62. Preface: Don't read this as a 100% endorsement of everything that the Pharmaceutical industry does, that is not my intent nor my personal belief.

    When I read all the "Big Pharma" type sneers and jeers that fill this page and are part of the lefts almost daily finger pointing, I wonder what kind of people consistently think that any large industry or business is evil? When I see this cheerleading for huge monetary awards by juries, I wonder at the thinking that seems to be absent by otherwise intelligent people.

    After all, corporations like those in the Pharmaceutical Industry provide jobs, benefits, contribute to the GDP (hint, government/public employees contribute ZERO to the GDP), provide goods and services for which a need and/or demand has been demonstrated, and contribute to charities and other nonprofit organizations on a local, national, and international level.

    If you look at the Fortune 500 annual Best Companies to Work for, many if not all the major Pharmaceutical Companies are on the list.

    They employ over 300,000 people in the US, with higher average wages and salaries than other industries.

    So, it's not like they are the usual "Outsourcing" evil corporations that is a usual liberal complaint.

    The most specific complaint about them I can garner from reading liberal complaints is that they make money. They don't give away their products (or at least provide them at or near cost).

    All the Pharm's are publicly traded companies, that means the stocks go up and more people invest if they make money. Most union pension funds, other public employee funds, and most general mutual funds are heavily invested in Pharmaceuticals.

    Why? an understanding that you invest in companies where there is a consistent strong demand and a performance record of providing winning product to the market demand/need.

    Now, what I really want to address is this liberal fantasy that these huge jury awards a)send a message to the industry, b)penalize them for the perceived and sometimes real wrongs.

    Wrong! Corporations don't pay these awards, consumers do! The Corporations like Merck will simply spread the final award and their own legal costs into the price of the products and services they provide.

    In the end, the only ones who suffer for these awards are consumers. That is what stirs me up when I see this "righteous indignation" against "Big Pharma", Big Tobacco, or any other industry that is the evil of the year with the left. In the end, the very thing you complain about regarding pricing is only made worse.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 8:09pm

63. great post liberty, but i would like to add to that the biggest scum bags i ever worked for were small businessmen. no capital,and would lie thru their teeth. big companies more often than not offer the best pay and bennefits.I got it! why dont we just nationalize everything! high pay! big percs!pensions!we wont have to pay SSI like gov employees dont have to!

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 8:17pm

64. BTW, did everyone here read recently the news that it turns out that Canada is not the place to get cheaper prescription drugs, the US is much cheaper!

    That's right, because most consumers make use of Generics. Generics it turns out are heavily regulated in Canada and thus are more expensive there than in the US.

    "We have a system of government favoritism toward generic companies," said Brett Skinner, director of pharmaceutical and health policy research for the Fraser Institute in Toronto. The public policy organization advocates free-market policies, including the repeal of price controls on brand-name drugs.

    Earlier this year, the institute released a study by Skinner of the 100 top-selling generic drugs. It found that Canadian prices were, on average, 78 percent higher than in the United States. The study estimated that Canadians could save $2 billion to $5 billion annually if their generic market was as competitive as it is here. (The study accounted for exchange rate differences, and the potential savings are in Canadian dollars.)

    A smaller study last year for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services looked at five popular generics and found that U.S. prices were32 percent lower.

    Canadian drug-approval regulations make it difficult for foreign generic competitors to enter the market, Skinner said, and the reimbursement policies of Canada's provincial governments act to keep prices artificially high.

    "We have very few companies competing for sales -- two companies take up nearly 70 percent of the market for the top 100 drugs," he said. "Canadian taxpayers are helping to support a monopoly situation on the drugstore shelf."

    http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/local/12365568.htm

    http://www.fda.gov/oc/whitepapers/drugprices.html

    Another urban myth from the left that has been shot down.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 8:21pm

65. LL,

    My Big Pharma jabs are directed specifically at them giving people the false impression that the majority of their money goes to R&D, which it doesn't and which is not hampered by jury awards and which does not justify the sky-high prices they charge here in the U.S. -- "Hey we have to charge so much because we spend the majority of our money on R&D."; and also that they don't come up with the majority of the new drugs -- non-profit, taxpayer-funded schools and institutes do -- and a lot of theirs are what are called "mee-too" drugs, which are are only slight variations of original drugs they didn't create; and, of course, their blatant hypocrisy in relying so much in the federal government to protect them yet wanting that same government to stay away when it comes to the pricing and marketing of their drugs. And as I've written, I don't support the sky-high award amount; and also as I've written, under Texas law it's going to be drastically reduced anyway.

    My beef is with malfeasance on the part of Big Bidness, not big buisness itself.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:31pm

66. LL,

    That's interesting. But what about the drugs that don't have generics, that are several years away from having generics?

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:37pm

67. a lot of socialism is just the government granting monopolies to a few companies capable of doing the work required. kevin is just an anti capitolist cool aid drinker.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 8:52pm

68. LL,

    Something else: My uninsured self had to be admitted to the emergency room last year, and the doctor had two prescriptions she wanted me to take; thank goodness these were generics, and I had no problem paying for them. The thing is, I haven't heard a whole lot of people griping in this country about the high price of generics. The stories I read about high-drug costs and people who can't afford them involve non-generics that cost a heck of a lot. So, hey, I find it great that we pay a lot less for generics here, but that doesn't erase the high non-generic prices. And, hey, can you find out if the generics in Canada are a lot more expensive than the non-generics? If they are, then that means Canadians have it as good with non-generics than we do with generics, though they don't have to wait several years for a generic to come out like we do.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:53pm

69. Ben,

    Please take a time-out and go kneel and worship at your I Love Bush shrine.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 8:53pm

70. KC,

    I hope you understand that many of my criticisms here of the left are really not directed at you. You and I may be in opposition on a great many issues, but we usually enjoy intelligent discussion of the facts. I also appreciate your honesty as opposed to some others on both sides that never admit their mistakes for false judgments or using links etc. without a real knowledge of the facts.

    Also, note that on a personal level I dont' agree 100% with the Pharms. I think you understood that, and also given my personal choice not to take prescription drugs.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 8:58pm

71. That's interesting. But what about the drugs that don't have generics, that are several years away from having generics?

    Something else: My uninsured self had to be admitted to the emergency room last year, and the doctor had two prescriptions she wanted me to take; thank goodness these were generics, and I had no problem paying for them. The thing is, I haven't heard a whole lot of people griping in this country about the high price of generics. The stories I read about high-drug costs and people who can't afford them involve non-generics that cost a heck of a lot. So, hey, I find it great that we pay a lot less for generics here, but that doesn't erase the high non-generic prices. And, hey, can you find out if the generics in Canada are a lot more expensive than the non-generics? If they are, then that means Canadians have it as good with non-generics than we do with generics, though they don't have to wait several years for a generic to come out like we do.

    Sorry to hear about your hospitalization last year. I hope all is well now?

    Regarding the lack of generics for some of the newer drugs, I just have to admit that no system is perfect. Not here, not even in the socialized medicine countries.

    There is an element of society here that refuses to take generics. Usually it is because someone has told that person that generics are less reliable.

    Additionally, some people don't ask their doctor if there is a generic available. This is where the problem with kickbacks and other incentives to Physicians are an admitted problem in this country. That Dr is going to prescribe a drug that his pharm rep is giving him lots of samples for, the free seminar trips, etc.

    I know this puts me outside of many conservative commentators, but the truth is the truth.

    Consumers thus must be knowledgeable and persistent in asking their physician and pharmacist if a generic is available.

    Part of my busines is providing supplemental insurance to consumers to help with the rising medical costs. In doing so, I help them try and reduce their overall insurance and total medical expenses.

    I don't see the single payor or a similar government health coverage version really coming into practice (except maybe in a couple of more liberal states, but only as a transition).

    My personal goal is to see the American people return to living a more proactive, preventative health care life rather than the costly effects we no are caught in due to just expecting the health system to fix us for results of our lifestyle. Obviously that doesn't apply to all health emergencies or catastrophic illnesses.

    During the 60's when suddenly workers had employer paid health plans and there was little or no cost for Dr visits (as we saw made rampant in the 90's with the introduction of widescale use of HMO's), people abused their bodies and the system which has brought us into the crisis we face in the 21st century.

    As a true conservative, I have practiced a more holistic approach to health care, and except for a hernia operation nearly 20 years ago, I have only used the medical system for a couple of serious accidents and my military related problems (which the VA has been wonderful about -but even there I haven't visited a VA center in about 5 years).

    There are estimates that we could eliminate at least 50% of our current health care costs if Americans would only practice sound holistic health practices. This is not some New Age mystery, but sound use of our natural means to good health, exercise, and other practices that affect our mental and emotional well being which contributes a great deal to our physical well being.

    A little longer than I had planned to post, but I think I stayed within my intent.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/21/2005 @ 9:21pm

72. Sorry to hear about your hospitalization last year. I hope all is well now?

    Yeah. But I was in there for 2 things that hit at once: a kidney stone and a urinary-tract infection -- my right testicle was on frigging fire, it felt like. Some tests, no surgery, 3 hours in there -- and a whopping bill of over $8000! I felt like saying what Samuel L. Jackson did in "The Long Kiss Goodnight": "Wait just a minute while I just pull that out of my ass."

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 9:28pm

73. with socialized medicine you pay, there isno free lunch. you pay more in sales tax, more in energy taxes, more in income taxes, you will pay a health care premium either way. kevin you act like its a free lunchif its socialized, you bought into the tax the rich is going to pay for it all.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 9:37pm

74. I was talking this morning with a friend who lives in Canada, near Winnipeg. He is a US ex-pat, married to a Canadian woman.

    I asked him about the canadian system.

    His view, roughly summarized is:

    "It is horrible. If you need a CT scan, it will be a 3 month wait. So you have a highly invasive cancer and will be dead in three months? Oh. Well, in that case, that will be a 3 month wait.

    The doctors don't want to work. The nurses don't want to work. They really don't care."

    He said:

    "My wife had appendicitis. She went to the Doctor, he said 'come back tomorrow'. She went back the next day, he said 'come back tomorrow.' The next day her appendix ruptured. She went to the hospital. They said 'Come back in three hours.' She went back, they operated, but it was a mess. She was two weeks in the hospital on antibiotics. Fortunately, she survived. "

    It is a total disaster, but the politicians are afraid to do anything about it. Most Canadians don't remember what decent quality health care is any more.

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 9:40pm

75. Oh yeah. He went on about the taxes, too.

    Like 30% income tax, and ?17? % sales tax.

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 9:42pm

76. So how do we control the price of drugs?

    I think that the greed motive is potent, and does drive a lot of new development. I think that because I have seen it in action.

    (Can you imagine how much money you could make if you came up with a "drug" that cured cancer?)

    You won't, by the way.

    How do we harness the greed so that it works for everybody?

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 9:45pm

77. LL

    I agree amout the holistic approach to health care.

    This year, I filled a prescription for myself for the first time since '92. I had a vasectomy reversal, and was prescribed prednisone and ibuprofen.

    I didn't really need it, but I decided to take it, so I wouldn't get into a conflict with the surgeon.

    But I avoid hospitals. Full of sick people. And lots of people die there, too. (I do go to visit people, you understand)

    Not everyone is blessed with good health though.

    And I had some serious issues, including type 2 diabetes. But that appears to have been defeated.

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 9:54pm

78. the socialists of the world want to euthanize the sickly, you know, that is how they feel they can balance budgets.soros the left's sugar daddy is a bigtime supporter of euthanasia, hes rich enough to pay for whatever he needs. the little people, they should get whacked if they are sick.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 9:58pm

79. (yawn)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 10:20pm

80. Kevin, even a yawn and a snore encourages him; stick to responding to LL. Judging from his frequent typos and goofy syntax, I'd say he probably has a Limbaugh-sized jones; no wonder he defends Big Pharma ;-)

    Posted by bookmanjb at 08/21/2005 @ 10:38pm

81. oooooooooooooh big pharma, you defens bid trial lawya. i like corporations that produce goods and services that we need than you who defends leaches and parasites on society.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 10:53pm

82. the awards cap in canada is 250K, which are not awarded that much.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/21/2005 @ 10:53pm

83. Good points, Ben.

    Euthanasia is a natural consequence of "the government knows best"

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:09pm

84. Good points, Ben.

    Euthanasia is a natural consequence of "the government knows best"

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:09pm

85. Dang! Dang!

    Double Double Post Post

    SSOO SSOO SSSSOOOORRRRYYYYY SSSSOOOORRRRYYYYY SSOO SSOO SSSSOOOORRRRYYYYY SSSSOOOORRRRYYYYY

    Posted by jonb at 08/21/2005 @ 11:11pm

86. Uh, Bush passed a measure in Texas that authorized hospitals to take patients off life support if they couldn't pay, regardless of whether the family objected. And Tom DeLay's family took daddy off life support. So, please, don't wade into waters here that are muddier than you'd like to think.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/21/2005 @ 11:35pm

87. KC:

    Do you have a link to the Texas law? Last I heard, doctors aren't supposed to deny care based on ability to pay. I believe it's part of their oath. Can't help thinking that there has to be more to this measure.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/21/2005 @ 11:58pm

88. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,151448,00.html

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 12:07am

89. http://www.businessrecord.com/Main.asp?SectionID=40&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=1776

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/22/2005 @ 12:10am

90. Maybe ALL medicines should have the following disclaimer: Taking this drug could result in your untimely demise. That way, no one could say they were unaware of the dangers of the med. Problem solved.

    Then again, that didn't stop people from suing the BEGEEZUS out of the tobacco industry.

    Lastly, if I'm not mistaken, Vioxx has been returned to market due to patient demand. It is tightly controlled, but some patients are willing to take the risk for relief of their pain. Something about quality of life.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:13am

91. From my reading of those two articles, the removal of life support was based on the patient's terminal condition, not financial concerns, in the two cases mentioned. The reference to "patient's ability to pay" sounded more like the reporter's opinion. Further, it sounded like the hospital went to extremes to meet the mother's demands, and only upon exhausting all options did they follow the advice of the ethics committee.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/22/2005 @ 12:37am

92. whjat would you expect from kc, a foaming out the mouth lefty. europe just kills them if they are using up to much $ .dont forget legal suicide. the left's cure for aids will be euthanasia when they dont need the homosexuals anymore. just like hitler did, he need the SA which were violent homosexuals, and when he didnt need them anymore on the night of the long knives they were taken care of.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/22/2005 @ 01:56am

93. I have no problem with Merck losing. But I have a major problem with our system. a victim such as this old guy should be compensated maybe 2 or 3M for damages max. it wasn't even confirmed the old guy died because of the drug. It was a maybe. Plus he would have died in a few years anyway. I think a younger victim with a stronger case would merit a bigger award.

    Merck however, is guilty of a coverup. My problem is punitive damages should not reward the victim and the lawyers further. It should only go to the government. The lawyer should not be making massive blood money off of someone else's misery. They should cap a lawyer's cut of punitive damages to research costs and a reasonable hourly fee of hours in excess of the personal settlement cut the lawyer gets like 50 bucks an hour. There is no perfect formula but it is preferable to lawyers making out like bandits.

    If that is not satisfactory, then I propose this. If lawyers are effectively forming a partnership with their client by working for contingency on whatever money gets awarded, then they should share the burden on a countersuit. If the defendent countersues because of a frivolous lawsuit, then the lawyers who were prepared to massively profit on a 35% cut should be prepared to pay a 35% cut of any judgement rendered against their clients in a countersuit.

    Oh, and I don't believe in reward caps. If a doctor really ruins a patient's life out of pure negligence, he should pay. And the legal system should make things more transparent so that a wronged patient should find it easy to win an award and not having to settle to pay a big cut to some high priced laywer.

    Posted by Pravin at 08/22/2005 @ 11:51am

94. As far as Merck and Vioxx, I think Merck should be able to sell Vioxx with a disclaimer and not be sued as long as it discloses the odds. Kevin , you are wrong on alternative drugs. Alternative drugs like Bextra have been pulled. For someone on this message board to say Vioxx is just a life enhancing drug is ignorant of arthritis. Techinally, they are correct, but they sound stupid when they say that because they underestimate the pain relief.

    Vioxx is a lot more important to people than breast implants. And Implants are riskier. Yet the government allows women to get them for purely cosmetic reasons. It is messed up that we allow 17 year old girls to get implants, but a 20 year old woman cannot drink legally or 40 year old woman can't take Vioxx even if she wanted to.

    Posted by Pravin at 08/22/2005 @ 11:56am

95. I was on Vioxx for a couple of years, until it was taken off the market. Then my Doc put me on Bextra but that was taken off the market. Now I take Mobic which is being questioned. Maybe my wife will still get lucky!

    Posted by JOHN P BOYCE at 08/22/2005 @ 2:36pm

96. I find 2 things disturbing about this trial.1)The award is obviously too large. There is no sense in an award of this size. Can anyone actually comprehend the magnitude of 250+ million dollars. The fact that it will be reduced under state law does not lessen the impact it will have on future cases. Lawyers have been scrambling for months here to accrue patients in a class action suit. Merck withdrew the drug when they had an inkling of increased cardiac events/strokes-unless someone knows more-they should not be assessed punative damages. Especially to the tune of 200 million. This all seems like Deja-Vu to the silicone breast implant suits of the 1980-1990 when trial lawyers forced Dow into bancrupcy on crap science. The second thing that bothers me is this animus directed toward the pharm companies themselves. Yes they make money-that is their job. If you want to complain about cost-stop asking your physician to prescribe whatever crap it is they advertise on TV. These companies try to come up with newer medications that can avail themselves to drug patent laws but act very similar to older-less expensive drugs-then they advertise them, and you guys eat them up. "Cialis might be right for you-ask your doctor." If you want to see cheaper drugs do the following-ask you doctor for cheaper alternatives.

    Posted by Cuttingtom at 08/22/2005 @ 3:49pm

97. BTW-John-I am a physician and do not prescribe selective COX inhibitors (vioxx, bextra, mobic) to my patients anymore. I try to use ibuprophen except when ulcer risk is prohibative.

    Posted by Cuttingtom at 08/22/2005 @ 3:51pm

98. i hurt my back about 9 years ago, and it was very painful.i was on vioxx, hyrocdone, and valium. they were life savers for me to get to a point were i am now. i still hate going to the dr's office, and thankfully i havent in a very long time.as for the government getting the money on punitive damages,that worries me as much as trial lawyers. the goverment will be motivated to try to sue companies for finacial gain. is it about the so called victom?i still think 250M is an absolutely rediculous amount.2- 5M max.

    Posted by Ben K at 08/22/2005 @ 7:58pm

99. Kevin

    Last night, I posted:

    "Good points, Ben.

    Euthanasia is a natural consequence of "the government knows best""

    And you responded with some links about Governor Bush, and somebody else.

    You really missed my point.

    It has nothing to do with the current occupant of the white house.

    It has to do with what happens when healthcare decisions fall into the hands of people who don't give a rip about the people they make the decisions for, (for example, the government)

    You haveta remember, the Democrats made me vote for President Bush. He wouldn't be my first choice.

    Consider the following I excerpted from a web site.

    I'l paste the link on the next post...

    "Death by Committee" (as Hugh Hewitt notes) has become the practice of at least one hospital in the Netherlands. Selective euthenasia is being administered to "very sad cases" meant to aleviate " the small number of infants born with such severe disabilities that doctors can see they have extreme pain and no hope for life." And while "the protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, ... it covers any child up to age 12." These are the reported words of a Groningen Hospital spokesman who went on to note that, the "parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors."

    With the parent's role limited and the individual's choice forfeit, the Committee has thereby assumed complete authority over those subject to its jurisdiction. Given the choice of care, avoidance of the Groningen Academic Hospital would clearly be warranted. And yet the government's legalization of adult euthanasia and refusal to prosecute ongoing infant 'terminations' has institutionalized the practice of managed murder. Other hospitals have followed suit, ensuring eventual consensus. In a State with socialized healthcare, the choice to avoid exposure to the protocol under such conditions would seem remote. Agape Press reports that Dutch residents have begun wearing bracelets informing doctors of their request not to be euthanized in the event of a serious injury, for whatever influence that will have with the 'Protocol Committees.' It is clear that people in Holland, therefore, exist by the leave of their government, in league with its compassion tempered by convenience... at the mercy of elites and bureaucrats and conditional imperatives. Other nations are sure to follow.

    Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 10:00pm

100. Here's the link. I allus struggle with html.

     HERE [mysandmen.blogspot.com]

     Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 10:01pm

101. This is only what is openly admitted.

     Posted by jonb at 08/22/2005 @ 10:03pm

102. the pro abortion lobby will never tell you about the women who die as a result, or that they have physciatric problems afterwords with the guilt. the socialists will never realize that there socialist utopia will just devour itself. abortion, euthanasia,legal suicide, no sexual restraint,homosexual normalization.do what ever you want, big brother will be there for you.everytime the left does a social experiment it always needs a taxpayer bailout, but in western europe, after 40 years of this great freedom, there are fewer and fewer taxpayers left.

     Posted by Ben K at 08/23/2005 @ 09:00am

103. 250 million dollars is a puny sum of money for Merck, who probably won't pay it entirely after the appeals are made, anyhow. But, you're right, we should be trying to preserve all those drug companies interest monies for when their lobbyists come to DC town to court our media sick 'whorehouse of representatives' in a few more years. For this, we're gonna need to gauge more of our terminally sick baby-booming elder's pension funds in order to support all them army plane tickets to those far away hard to pronounce evil dwellings in Iran, North Korea, and China; where we can hopefully kill off them unedicated mid westernly yolks; thereby insuring social darwinism can breed or evolve some even dumber whores from their sophisticated Oil brothels in Texas. Ya' hear? Dr.Marcia Angell has written a ground breaking work on Big Pharma and their sins called "The Truth About the Drug Companies." If you like learning, you'll like reading it.

     Posted by Shane at 08/23/2005 @ 2:47pm

104. shane their are lobbyist for big business, trial lawyers, public employee unions, so give me a break the the lobbyists crap.Soros just wants to euthanize the termanally ill, remeber, they are doing it in europe already.ans as long as the mediccal care is private, we dont have to worry about the government. a fool like you thinks there isnt forces int he world that want to destroy us, but remeber clinton created the north korean monster.

     Posted by Ben K at 08/23/2005 @ 8:26pm

105. if you dont like oil, stop using petroliumk products . make a statement!

     Posted by Ben K at 08/23/2005 @ 8:27pm