imlach

Hmm.....$253m (£141m) compensation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4167784.stm

So how much are Wal-Mart paying their lowly produce managers (ie, the guy that makes sure the fruit & veg are stocked up in your local Asda).......

Obviously every life is priceless, but £147m?!?!?!

Soulgirl

what a load of total absolute PC crappy bollox. Sadly, America is paving the way for British suits too!

This has to be STOPPED, when you're dead who fukcing cares... seems money is more imprtant to some that the life of their loved one. If my loved one died I would not think twice about the fiscal aspect... this whole scenario is just crap! And no, before you start poking your red hot sticks in my side, it's not even about how much they earned to keep me even though they're dead. They are dead! Get on with it!

NotoriousREV

If your loved one died as a result of taking medicine that was supposed to be safe, I think you'd consider sueing as well...

Brit_in_Japan

It's fair that they should pay compensation if their drug has caused deaths and they didn't advise people of the risks. So yes, there should be British lawsuits too. But one important difference between the UK and the US is punitive damages. The majority of the $253 million awarded in the US will be punative damages. But we do not award punative damages here, so the awards will be on a different scale.

Soulgirl

Why would I? It won't bring them back to life.

Brit_in_Japan

Hypothetical example, say it was your partner that died, he was the main earner, you have 3 children, a big mortgage, no pension provision etc. It wouldn't bring your partner back, but it could help make sure that you and the kids were secure financially. The UK does not award punative damages, so it would not be £100's millions compensation here, but it would be based on age, income, dependents.

Patt@firstime

I think compo is due but how can anyone say that £141,000,000 is needed

Matt

NotoriousREV

So if I supply you with all your pharmaceutical needs and I kill you, you're happy to just accept that?

GC8

The point that people seem to be missing, is that the final figure is comprised principally of punitive damages. These are intended to punish the company, rather than represent approproate compensation for the plaintiff's loss.

Simon

paul-s

but where does the money go ? is it all going to this woman, every last dollar ? punitive damages punish the company but why would they have to go to her, instead of research into medicine or such things

turboman786

Blimey if the yanks had to pay £147m to every civilian Iraqi who their trigger happy numtpies have killed, the good ol us of a may just go bust!!

Soulgirl

The moral of the story is this kids.... just say no to drugs, then when you do die there will be no uncertainty that you died of natural causes

Looks like Merk were unlucky with non expert submissions during the trial but they are appealing so the woman may not get her money after all.

The blood sucking lawyers are the worst though and all blame should lay at their feet. They whip people into a frenzy with offers of cash, no win no fee. It's disgusting really. Australia has a better compensation structure don't they? I believe it's a static table of cash sums for a variety of claims.

Soon we will have to sign disclaimers for everything so that no one can get sued

GC8

50% perhaps more, will go to the plaintiff's advocate. Thats another reason why damages are so high in American courts.

Simon

markr1963

Bandwagon...jump

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

So one bloke died as a result of taking it! how many have survived with no ill effects???

If the drug was passed as safe then it was safe but as we all know there are exceptions to the rule. Maybe the bloke whi died was alergic to said drug or taking the drug triggered some other reaction that killed him.

IMHO this guy was just unlucky, and so what if a handfull of people die or have a reaction to a drug companies can not possible test for every eventuality.

There will always be someone somewhere that will die from taking a sfae and approved drug it is just the way it is.

NotoriousREV

Wurzel, have you read the report? The drug was withdrawn after being found to be unsafe which was a little too late for the guy.

Tiggs

"If the drug was passed as safe then it was safe but as we all know there are exceptions to the rule. Maybe the bloke whi died was alergic to said drug or taking the drug triggered some other reaction that killed him."

wow....the drug company should have hired you in their defence.............pity big tobacco didnt know about your court room skills..."listen folks....i bet smoking isnt that bad...its just a couple of unlucky people that get hooked"

Soulgirl

The contraceptive pill kills some women but they haven't been removed from the market *shrug*

Nev

In Merck's defence, these things can be very difficult to predict, and the drug was withdrawn in 2003 when these problems were found. Could be due to a number of things - mechanism related toxicity (ie a bi-product of the action of the drug), non mechanism related toxicty caused by the molecule itself, or one of its metabolites. Can often be difficult to unravel.

Pharmaceutical firms (rightly so) are under increasing regulatory pressure to make drugs safer, but adverse drug reactions drugs still account for one of the largest causes of death in the US.

All in my opinion of course!

Nev

Soulgirl

What trial period is given to new drugs? I know surgical procedures have to notch up 10 years to be ''proven'' so what is it for drugs?

jods

Well I guess the natural next step for pharma companies is to reprice all their medicine in order to build up enough reserves to pay these sort of claims.

Mr Smith - Your pile cream is ready, That'll be £35,000 please. Cash or Credit ?

Nev

Can't see that happening, what is more likely is forcing R and D to do 'more with less' - see it happening every day. Big pharma is not a particularly great place to work at the mo, IMHO

Nev

Don't think there is a 'trial period' as such, once approved they are on the open market. Adverse drug reactions are monitored and dealt with on a case by case basis I believe? That said, pharmaceutical firms don't just leave the drugs alone, Phase IV clinical trials are put in place to look at other dose formulations etc, so the drugs are theoretically under constant scrutiny IMHO.