March 18, 2009
The Supreme Court handed down its
decision this month in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, ruling
that federal law did not bar plaintiff Diana Levine from suing
pharmaceutical maker Wyeth over allegedly insufficient drug safety
warnings, even though the warnings had been approved by the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). This decision establishes the
troubling precedent that a sympathetic jury can now supersede the
expert opinions of the FDA on what qualifies as adequate safety
labeling, writes Gregory Conko. Ultimately, that means drug firms
face higher costs and greater uncertainty. Both are bad for
patients.
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.