Bioethics: March 2008 Archives

         

stock_smoking-tax.jpgConflicts of Interest have risen their ugly head again in human subject research. This time hidden tobacco money appears to have funded a study suggesting that lung scans might help save smokers from cancer and thereby lessen the risks of smoking.

Both the New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA published studies by Weill Cornell Medical College researchers in 2006 without understanding or disclosing that the Liggett Group had provided funding for the study.

The issue of whether such routine scans are worthwhile is a hot topic and a critical public health issue. In fact, the American Cancer Society and numerous other groups have provided funding to the Cornell team to see if routinely screening smokers with CT scans can reveal early signs of lung cancer and prevent deaths.

John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute issued a statement that scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable."

JAMA’s editor in chief Dr. Catherine DeAngelis  said she contacted Cornell’s lead researcher Dr. Claudia Henschke months ago after learning that the Cornell group held patents related to CT scanning technology which also were not disclosed.  Said Dr. DeAngelis,  "We'd been working with Dr. Henschke trying to get her to write a letter of apology — which is our policy — and to take responsibility. It was not easy to get her to do anything." DeAngelis further said that, had she known big tobacco had funded the research, “ I would have turned down the paper."

Alan Milstein

Lilly Settles With Alaska for $15 Million

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

         

zyprexa.jpgAlaska has settled its lawsuit with Eli Lilly for $15 million. The settlement occurs after two in a series of three closely watched Supreme Court opinions dealing with whether the FDA is the only watchdog the public needs over the drug and device manufacturers. Alaska filed the lawsuit in March 2006 lawsuit alleging the state and healthcare providers were insufficiently warned about possible side effects of Zyprexa, Lilly’s $5 billion bestseller, relating to weight gain, high blood sugar and diabetes, causing harm to the state's Medicaid recipients and increased costs.

          Alaska filed its claim under the state’s  Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act. The trial began on March 6th before a jury and Anchorage Superior Court Judge Mark Rindner. With the jury out of the courtroom, the judge announced that without lawsuits like this one, claims that drugs cause health problems "might well go unaddressed" and that the evidence presented by the state had established that the FDA "isn't capable of policing this matter."

Alan Milstein 

three.jpgIn Glendale, California, the jury rendered a defense verdict in the malpractice trial over alleged negligence and liability in John Ritter's death. Jurors, who voted 9 to 3 against liability, said they were torn “between sympathy for Ritter's wife and children and their conviction that the doctors were blameless."

The family of John Ritter has sued Burbank's Providence St. Joseph Medical Center and the emergency room physicians charging failure to diagnose and treat the late actor’s rare aortic dissection in timely fashion. Ritter’s family had already received $14 million in settlements and was seeking another $67 million from the emergency room physicians who did not participate in the settlement. This in a state with a $250,000 cap on damages for pain and suffering. That 67 mil is the amount the experts projected Ritter would earn over the remaining course of his career.

Mis-Taken Identity?

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

             

mist.jpgThe more things change and the more advanced we are with our technology, the more they remain the same. As long as there is any human component whatsoever to a process, there will always be a margin of error. The Washington Post reports today that a government laptop computer containing sensitive medical information on 2,500 patients enrolled in a
National Institutes of Health study was stolen in February. Yes, February.  

Included in the stolen data was seven years' worth of clinical trial data, including names, medical diagnoses and details of the patients' heart scans. The information was not encrypted, in violation of the government's data-security policy.

NIH officials did not publicly disclose the theft and did not formally, in writing, notify the affected patients of the breach in security until last Thursday -- almost a month later.  NIH officialts said they delayed because of concerns that they would provoke undue alarm. Yeah, ya think?

The Washington Post further reported that this month, the Government Accountability Office found that at least 19 of 24 agencies reviewed had experienced at least one breach that could expose people's personal information to identity theft.

 

John M. Hanamirian

 

      

med mar.jpg

Representative Barney Frank announced he intends to introduce a bill decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. Whether it has much chance of success is another story, but hopefully the proposal will begin the much needed debate. Frank says his principal motivation is the absurd actions of federal law enforcement in prosecuting those using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Currently thirteen states allow those with cancer or aids or other debilitating illnesses to use marijuana to relieve their pain or nausea or to improve their appetite. The remaining states and the federal government would rather spend resources prosecuting the desperately ill who seek some measure of comfort from this ancient herbal remedy.  

Alan Milstein   

Art Caplan On the Ethics of Steroid Use

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

      

steroids_591.jpg
Here is an excellent piece by Arthur Caplan writing in Science Progress about the ethics of steroid use. Art writes:

The battle over performance enhancement is often fought out as if one size fits all—what makes performance enhancement acceptable in one domain, sports, will make it acceptable in all aspects of life. What the fight between Harris and Sandel reveals is that this is not so. There are reasons to believe that steroids don’t belong in sports, even putting safety concerns aside. But this does not mean that performance-enhancing drugs have no appropriate role in any areas of life and achievement. The decision about what role pharmacology and genetics ought to play depends on whether you are trying to travel to another planet, solve a difficult math problem, learn a new language, or hit a home run.

drugtest.jpg

The Ninth Circuit yesterday issued its anxiously awaited Opinion in Lanier v. City of Woodburn, holding that preemployment drug testing violated plaintiff’s privacy rights under the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. Lanier had sued the municipal employer, alleging that its policy requiring job applicants to pass pre-employment drug tests was unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff concluding that the policy was unconstitutional as applied to Lanier who had applied for a job as a library page, though the court held the policy was not facially invalid.

The city had argued that it had a substantial and important interest in screening library pages mainly because drug abuse is a serious societal problem and might have an adverse impact on job performance. The court cogently rejected these arguments reasoning that prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court "make clear the need for suspicionless testing must be far more specific and substantial than the generalized existence of a societal problem of the sort that [the employer] has posited." The court noted that the need in suspicionless cases not involving high risk or safety-sensitive tasks must be "special" and not merely "symbolic."

Alan Milstein

 

 

Guinea Pigging for $2000 a Bite

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

        

malaria.jpg

The Seattle Biomedical Research Institute wants to infect healthy human subjects with malaria to test a new vaccine. The Center will be offering $2000 to the human guinea pigs willing to rent their bodies for the greater good. Is it ethical? Depends who you ask. Here is a study with all risk and no benefit to the healthy subjects, other than the two grand, and money is not supposed to count as a benefit. The money is the problem, of course, as it always is. The money is used to induce the needy to be subjects, not for altruism, but for the basic necessities of life or maybe just some spending money. If you doubt that, see if there are any rich folks you know who want to volunteer.

        The researchers seem certain that they can quickly cure anyone infected and that the worst the subjects will experience are some flu like symptoms. Where have we heard that before?

     Stay tuned.

 

Alan Milstein

FDA An Inadequate Check On BigPharma

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

             

hastins.gif Wendy Parmet of the Hastings Center Bioethics Forum has written an excellent article on the recent moves by the Supreme Court to shield device and drug manufacturers from liability.  In
Safety First-Or Safety Preempted, Ms. Parmet writes what many of us know: the FDA has historically done a poor job of protecting consumers and the threat of liability is critical to keeping BigPharma in check.

 

The New Jersey Legislature unanimously released an important bill out of committee today. The bill requires physicians to obtain informed consent from the parent of a child before prescribing a psychotropic drug containing a Black Box warning issued by the FDA. Testifying before the committee were firm clients Lisa Van Syckel and Laurie Yorke. The bill now goes before the full Senate.

 

rezulin.jpg  

         The Supreme Court issued its second opinion on preemption is as many weeks, this time in Warner Lambert v. Kent, rendering a split 4 to 4 opinion that leaves this critical issue still up for grabs. The case involved Warner-Lambert’s diabetes drug Rezulin, which was pulled from the market in 2000 when it was revealed that it caused liver damage.

        The Court considered a Michigan law that bars lawsuits over drugs approved for sale by the FDA except if the drug company committed fraud during the FDA review process. Who could argue against such an exception? Surely, if the drug company lied to the FDA during the approval process, it should not be able to use FDA approval to shield itself from lawsuits. Well, at least four Justices believed otherwise, holding that the fact that a drug company defrauded the FDA do not give rise to a private cause of action. Even worse, most Court observers believe Chief Justice Roberts would have provided the fifth vote for preemption but he recused himself because he owns stock in Pfizer which now owns Warner Lambert. The split vote leaves intact a Second Circuit decision in favor of the plaintiffs injured by the drug.

     Still another preemption case looms on the horizon, Wyeth vs. Levine, and Roberts unfortunately does not own stock in Wyeth.

Alan Milstein 

            

pharmalot.pngHere is an
article about the work of two clients of the firm and their efforts to protect the children of New Jersey before the state legislature.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Bioethics category from March 2008.

Bioethics: February 2008 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Bioethics: March 2008: Monthly Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.01