As long as the users of dangerous drugs are never warned of the dnagers and as long as misinformation by the Drug Companies can be used in place of truth, more and more people will die from these drugs and fewer and fewer courts of law will find the Big Parma liable.
The individual rights which were the backbone of this country have been usurped by the interests of businesses and their profits. The problem will likely get worse until we have non-Republican Bush appointees deciding issues between businesses and individuals because these days an individuals life and health appear to be secondary to the profits, obscene profits of big business. Wake up America, you are voting for rich people and rich ideas which do not help or apply to you.

Karen Menzies is a hard working patriot who is seeking to right the wrongs in this era of non-accountability of businesses.

On one level, the issue with big pharma reflects the general lack of prosecution in the area of white collar crime. But, more specifically, FDA’s concern is that a drug is properly labelled or withdrawn if that is called for.

Once that happens (as is now has re: Paxil’s label), they are almost never interested in going back and digging up why things didn’t change earlier. It takes resources they don’t have and, from a public health perspective, the problem is now “solved” as they view it.
Particularly re: proving intentional (felony) fraud, it ain’t easy - as the 4-year UK investigation suggests.

There is also the argument (that some have advanced here) that a stiff criminal or civil penalty will negatively impact the good things the relevant company is doing and thus, by utilitarian calculus, it is considered the greater good to allow a certain amount of malfeasance to protect the “big picture.”

One could easily argue with this view - the power of sending a message. But that’s not the argument that usually wins.

Keep this in mind when you hear preemptors talk about the criminal liability they face even without lawsuits. It sounds good rhetorically. But, as above, that criminal liability mostly doesn’t exist.

Why?..

“But the government didn’t pursue a criminal prosecution of Glaxo because UK laws were unclear on whether companies were obligated to report certain drug data.

This is pretty much an old story has has repeated itself innumerable times. I would be amazed (but am open to amazement) if there was ever a criminal prosecution of GSK re: Paxil, and I am making no judgment about what ought to happen.

As some may know, there was never any criminal prosecution related to thalidomide, despite outright and definitive evidence of deliberate cover-up and falsification of data with devastating consequences for pts (mainly infants) and their survivors.

There were civil settlements and slaps on the wrist. I.e., the usual.

Criminal prosecution just doesn’t happen in this arena.

Yes, a great name, indeed. Right up there with Snagglepuss.

Cheers

ed