Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
WSJ's Stephen Moore Book Signing Luncheon-Rescheduled for December 17
12.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, ... 
More

Recent Events
Victor Davis Hanson Orange County Luncheon December 5, 2012
12.5.2012 12:00:00 PM

Post Election: A Roadmap for America's Future

 More

Post Election Analysis with George F. Will & Special Award Presentation to Sal Khan of the Khan Academy
11.9.2012 6:00:00 PM

Pacific Research Institute Annual Gala Dinner

 More

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
10.19.2012 5:00:00 PM
Author Book Signing and Reception with U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Court ruling could curb medical research
North County Times (CA) Letter to the Editor
By: Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D
11.10.2008

North County Times (Escondido, CA), November 8, 2008
 

Wyeth properly warned doctors and patients about the risks associated with administering Phenergan ("FDA pre-emptive rule to be challenged," Nov. 2).

The FDA-approved label contained prominent warnings: "Extreme care should be exercised to avoid ... inadvertent intra-arterial injection. Reports compatible with inadvertent intra-arterial injection ... suggest that pain, severe chemical irritation ... and resultant gangrene requiring amputation are likely under such circumstances." It couldn't be clearer.

Further, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns preemption in Wyeth v. Levine, local judges, juries and personal-injury lawyers would replace expert FDA scientists as the de facto drug regulators. It would become nearly impossible for companies to comply with different standards in each state.

As a consequence, drug developers would curb research into new, lifesaving medicines because navigating 50 separate, jury-created approval processes would be too expensive and risky. That is bad news for patients waiting for the next generation of cures.

Lawrence McQuillan, Ph.D.
Director, Business and Economic Studies
Pacific Research Institute

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources