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 Inadequate labeling or human error?
Austin American-Statesman (TX) Letter to the Editor
By: Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D
12.17.2008

Austin American-Statesman (Austin, TX), December 17, 2008


 

U.S. Tort Liability Index: 2008
Re: Nov. 28 commentary

"Court takes up pre-emption doctrine."

It's hard to see how "inadequate labeling," not human error, resulted in the amputation of Diana Levine's arm, as Thomas O. McGarity claims.

The FDA-approved label on the anti-nausea drug Phenergan 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 stated any clearer.

If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the principle of pre-emption in Wyeth v. Levine, local juries and personal-injury lawyers would de facto replace expert FDA scientists as America's drug regulators. Consequently, drug developers would curb research into new, life-saving medicines because navigating 50 separate, jury-created approval processes would be too costly and risky.

For patients waiting for the next round of cures, this is terrifying news.

Lawrence J. McQuillan
Pacific Research Institute
lmcquillan@pacificresearch.org
San Francisco

 

Related Link
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