A Stitch in Haste

The New York Times:

Merck deserves some sympathy, but not a lot, for the staggering loss it suffered last week in a case involving its painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn from the market because it raises the risk of heart attacks and strokes in a small percentage of patients.

I think the people at Merck would be the first to say that they are not seeking "sympathy," but merely a fair and accurate application of the law.

They didn't get it in the Ernst case, because they were left to the irrational, contra-legal whims of a moron jury.

Have "sympathy" instead for the 20 million COX-2 users (sorry, "former users") who are being denied the opporunity to make an informed decision about whether to continue taking the pain killer.

Have "sympathy" for all the people, perhaps including you, who will be denied access to some future drug because of the chilling effect the COX-2 regulatory and legal debacle will likely have on pharmaceutical research and new drug introduction and advertising.

But don't have "sympathy" for Merck. They don't need it. What they need is a functional legal system.

UPDATE: USA Today also comments on jury "sympathy" --

Jurors are often swayed by sympathy or a slick presentation from an expert witness or attorney. Litigation becomes jury-by-jury roulette. An alternative worth considering is special health courts, where judges experienced in medicine try cases without juries. The judges would select impartial experts and write opinions that set precedent.

Makes sense to me.