Recently in Bioethics Category

Finally, A Sensible Preemption Decision

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

paxil.jpgIn a startling reversal of his own ruling, Chief Judge David Hamilton of the Southern District of Indiana issued a 28 page
Opinion reversing his preemption ruling in an SSRI suicide case. The Judge concluded that, in his prior ruling, he "failed to appreciate . . . the fact that the ongoing ability, authority, and responsibility to strengthen a label still rest squarely with the drug manufacturer." The Judge also noted that "the FDA's current position on preemption is not 'long standing' but is in fact a '180-degree reversal'
from its earlier stance."

The Judge rightly concluded that "drug manufacturers
have the authority to strengthen warnings without the advance permission of
the FDA"  and that “failure to warn litigation can serve to reinforce the FDA's
regulations, which already place the obligation to strengthen the warnings
on a drug's label squarely on the shoulders of the drug's manufacturer."
          The Judge relied in part on a recent law review article by former FDA Commissioner, David Kessler, in which he noted the recent change in position by the FDA under the watch of a Chief counsel with significant ties to BigPharma. Mr. Kessler wrote: "The most fundamental problem is that drugs are approved on the basis of
clinical testing that cannot, and is not designed to, uncover risks that are
relatively rare or have long latency periods. Legislation cannot solve this
problem ... Top-down surveillance is no substitute for failure to warn
litigation, which provides the FDA, doctors, and patients with information
about new risks that is otherwise unavailable to the agency."
              The
Indiana
case involved a 55 year-old Catholic priest with no history of suicidal ideation who took his life 22 days after being put on Paxil.

Alan Milstein

  

 

Gambling Addiction Suit Faces Long Odds

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Roulette1.jpg
Randolph Simens, 55, claims he took Pfizer’s drug Mirapex once he was diagnosed with  Parkinson’s disease and developed hand tremors. Simens says he was a recreational gambler before taking the drug but soon started spending entire nights gambling on the Internet and in casinos, losing some 3 million dollars. After reading an article about the peculiar side effects of Mirapex, he quit the drug and, after joining a gambler’s support group, soon lost the urge to gamble. He is now suing Pfizer in state court in New York.

The connection between Mirapex and compulsive gambling first came to light in July 2005 when doctors at the Mayo Clinic reported the results of a study suggesting a link between dopamine agonist drugs like Mirapex and compulsive gambling.

Researchers have long known that certain drugs can cause adverse reactions that can change a person's behavior by initiating destructive thoughts which lead to destructive behavior. It will be interesting to see if a court and jury will accept the theory that a prescription drug is responsible for behavior such as a gambling addiction.

Alan Milstein

 

 

 

Waxman Wants To Pre-Empt Riegel v Medtronic

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Representative  Henry Waxman has introduced  a bill to essentially overrule the recent court rulings such as Riegel v Medtronic holding that civil claims against medical device manufacturers are pre-empted by FDA action.  The Medical Device Safety Act of 2008 would reinstate tort liability in state civil actions alleging negligent design of such devices or the failure to warn of their dangerous propensity. Such a bill would be a welcome relief to consumers seeking just compensation for their injuries.

 

Alan Milstein

Here is an article I wrote titled “Research Malpractice and the Issue of Incidental Findings,” which just came out in the Summer 2008 issue of “The Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics.”

 

Alan Milstein

     

pharma_logos.gifThe New York Times
reports that two prominent child psychiatrists failed to disclose they each had received more than a million dollars in consulting fees from drugmakers from 2000- 2007. During this time, and based in no small part on the work of Dr. Joseph Biederman and Dr. Timoth Wilens, diagnosis rates for pediatric bipolar disorder increased 40 times. Today, as many as 500,000 children receive at least one prescription for antipsychotic drugs, including 20,500 under the age of 6 years old.

     Senator Chuck Grassley told the Times that, by failing to report this income from the companies who reap hundreds of millions of dollars from their work, the two psychiatrists may have violated university, state and federal rules governing conflicts of interest. Grassley has been conducting hearings on academics who receive grant money from BigPharma and the potential financial conflicts that might arise from such relationships.

         Harvard Spokeswoman Alyssa Kneller told the Times: “The information released by Senator Grassley suggests that, in certain instances, each doctor may have failed to disclose outside income from pharmaceutical companies and other entities that should have been disclosed.” She added that a university conflict committee is reviewing the physicians’ conduct.

        The kinds of studies these psychiatrists and others are conducting on young children is highly questionable. Bloomberg News reported that Dr. Biederman is currently recruiting 4- to6-year-olds with supposed bipolar disorder to test AstraZeneca's antipsychotic, Seroquel, and another group of 6- to 12-year-olds to test Equetro, developed by U.K.-based Shire Ltd.

 

Alan Milstein 

 

Art Caplan on Oscar Pistorious

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

           

oscar-pistorius-thumb.jpg

Over at our friends at Blog-Bioethics.net, Art Caplan has his say on whether Oscar Pistorious should be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

Grimes v. Kennedy Kreiger Redux

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

   

                    

lead.jpg
The same folks who brought you Grimes v. Kennedy Kreiger bring you another ethically challenged study on poor black Baltimore families. Using federal grant money, scientists affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health spread human and industrial wastes on the yards of poor African American families to test whether it might protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. According to the AP, the families were given food coupons to induce their participation and were told the sludge was safe commercial grade fertilizer; the researchers never informed them about any harmful ingredients.

One soil scientist, Murray McBride, who reviewed the study, commented: "It's not at all clear that the sludge binding the lead will be preserved in the acidity of the stomach. Actually thinking about a child ingesting this, there's a very good chance that it's not safe . . .If you're not telling them what kinds of chemicals could be in there, how could they even make an informed decision. If you're telling them it's absolutely safe, then it's not ethical. In many relatively wealthy people's neighborhoods, I would think that people would research this a little and see a problem and raise a red flag."

The study’s lead author, Mark Farfel, formerly was associated with Baltimore’s Kennedy Krieger Institute, where he was a project manager. In 2001, Maryland's highest court, in reviewing another Farfel/Kennedy Kreiger study concerned with lead abatement in poor black neighborhoods, compared it to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study on poor black sharecroppers. The Court concluded: “These programs were somewhat alike in the vulnerability of the subjects: uneducated African-American men, debilitated patients in a charity hospital, prisoners of war, inmates of concentration camps and others falling within the custody and control of the agencies conducting or approving the experiments."

Alan Milstein 

Senate Passes GINA

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 

           
ecur.jpg
   In a rare act of nonpartisanship, the Senate passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 95 to 0. The Bill, which is expected to shortly sail through the House and then be signed by the President, aims at the two areas of concern over the abuse of DNA testing: it will make it illegal for insurers to deny health coverage to someone on the basis of genetic information and will bar employers from hiring or firing anyone on the basis of such information.

              You might recall this office raised precisely these concerns when arguing that NBA center Eddie Curry could not be compelled by his then employer, the Chicago Bulls, to undergo genetic testing for hypercadiomyopathy. The Bulls ultimately backed down from the demand and traded Curry to the New York Knicks.

              The Senate Bill will be welcome protection to citizens in this brave new world where DNA testing may reveal our propensities, but not our certainties, to contract certain diseases, become addicted to certain behaviors, or engage in certain socially undesirable activities.

 

Alan Milstein

Here is an article about a lecture I gave recently at the University of Virginia.

 

Alan Milstein

            

jesse19.gif
Here is an excellent essay by Paul Gelsinger and Adil Shamoo about whether any real change has occurred since Jesse Gelsinger’s death eight years ago.