Comments on: Wyeth v. Levine

By: An Explosion of Litigation | OpenMarket.org

An Explosion of Litigation | OpenMarket.org — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:49:47 +0000

[…] Frank calls the Wyeth decision the most anti-business decision in more than 40 years. Yet, amazingly, the liberal New York Times accused the Supreme […]

By: PointOfLaw Forum

PointOfLaw Forum — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:45:38 +0000

More Wyeth v. Levine reactions…

Our own Jim Copland and Paul Howard of the Manhattan Institute, in the Washington Times; Gordon Crovitz, in the Wall Street Journal. More: Russell Jackson (via Beck & Herrmann), Carter @ ShopFloor, Daniel Fisher @ Forbes, Ted Frank @ Overlawyered,……

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:02:38 +0000

@14. There is something called the "commerce clause," which once upon a time was used by the Supreme Court to prevent individual states from expropriating the gains from interstate commerce.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:00:43 +0000

Don’t blame the Supreme Court for this travesty of justice. The Court got it right with a minor victory for federalism, which would be great if only they would be more consistent. State law seems obviously idiotic. Anyone who did not consider Wyeth’s warning label adequate is not a serious person. But it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to fix bad state tort law unless the Constitution explicitly forbids that law.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:16:35 +0000

throckmorton

You bring up a very important issue, that injections in and of themselves can cause gangrene. If that is true then which medicine is injected is a mute point and the Vermont litigation is absolutely incompetent as is our Supreme Court. Could you talk to Walter Olson or Ted Frank about this. I think it deserves a separate post.

I was glad that Chief Justice Roberts got it right on this case. He has the talent to be a great justice, but he messed up the school case. I am saddaned thst Associate Justice Breyer made a fool of himself again. The Carbon Dioxide ruling was beyond the pale too.

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:00:50 +0000

You dont want to give pennicillin in an artery because the same thing can happen. It does and can happen. There tends to be more spasm with phergan and related compunds. The use in migraine treatment is different and relates to the seratonergic pathways.

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:36:39 +0000

throckmorton

Wouldn’t your plumbing theory apply to any injection. Injections of Penicillian was popular when I was a child, yet I never heard of a gangrene complication until Levine. The spasm part of your theory might be it. The drug is supposed to relieve pounding headaches and might interfere with the pumping in arteries. Thanks for the comment.

By: throckmorton

throckmorton — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:36:31 +0000

William Nuesslein

Arteries can go into spasm and allow clots to block them completely. This is what causes heart attacks and strokes. If you inject a mediation in a small artery that can cause clots, you are essentially stroking out what ever tissue that artery feeds. Veins on the other hand are like low pressure drainage ditches. They flow from small to large and the medication gets diluted as it goes up. Also veins do not spasm and have valves that can prevent the clots from going farther up.

By: UVA lawyer

UVA lawyer — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:05:28 +0000

The FDA was not created to replace state regulations, instead it was created to supplement existing state regulations. I prefer a court that errs on the side of the people, rather than on the side of big business. Kudos to Thomas for sticking with his principles. I can’t say the same for Roberts-Alito-Scalia triumvirate.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:24:29 +0000

I propose that all labeling be removed and just the phrase “Death will occur if you screw up” appears on evry bottle…along with the name of the drug and the dosage…and basic administering techniques…and pictures of what to do….a test to see if you actually know what your doing…and…and…and….CRUD! Now we are right back where we started.

To me the ruling was correct it’s just that we all want the courts to act when the legislature won’t. What’s more appalling is that the press does not highlight what’s going on.

Question: Did the hospital/Staff/Etc. admit, either by their settling or otherwise, to mis-administering the dosage? If so, how would changing the label make it safer?

No labeling would ever make a person more capable. Nor should any labeling make a person more cautious as each dosage needs to be administered correctly and with the same amount of accuracy and safety, within human ability.