Will Iowa follow Virginia's Lead in Holding Drug Companies Liable for Not Warning Patients

Steve Lombardi

Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 335

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

If a doctor prescribes a defective drug for you that causes you an adverse reaction, the drug companies try to get out of it saying it's up the doctor to warn his patient of the risks. Understand the adverse reaction can be death or a stroke that leaves the patient unable to work. These are serious side effects I'm talking about not a simple transient head ache. Doctor's don't always know the risks because the research and reports to the drug companies about undesirable and unexpected side effects aren't always shared with the doctors who prescribe these drugs. As a matter of fairness how can the courts expect the doctor's to warn about side effects they aren't told about? Why should drug companies be allowed to make billions while patients are being treated like lab rats being used in secret experiments? The Supreme Court put its foot down and rejected this doctrine, known as the learned intermediary doctrine.

Citing the "current state of the prescription drug industry and physician/ patient relationships," three of the five justices of the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in a case of first impression that the state would not adopt the learned-intermediary doctrine. (Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, 2007 WL 1888777 (W. Va. June 27, 2007).)

In that case the patient took Propulsid for acid reflux. Three days later she died from a sudden cardiac arrhythmia. She's taking a drug for an upset stomach and can have a heart attack from taking it? Someone ought to tell her she can die from taking this drug. And if there were over 100 deaths at that point it's probably information she needs to decide how serious. Even if there is such a doctrine the sufficiency of the warnings is at issue and a jury should decide if they told her and the doctor enough to heighten their awareness of the serious risks. Besides this doctrine was developed in 1925 when drug companies didn't advertise like they do today. You can't turn on a weekly TV program without hearing a commercial about some guy with either erectile dysfunction or taking a cholesterol drug. The drug companies are clearly advertising to us. The commercials tell us to ask our doctors about the latest designer drug that will treat every malady known to man. The underlying theme is these drugs make us live longer. And when the side effects can kill us, we ought to be told about them. It's that simple.

Davis noted that drug companies have spent billions of dollars on ads aimed directly at consumers since 1997, when the FDA set forth new drug advertising guidelines. This surge of advertising has changed the doctor-patient relationship, she explained: Patients have become more involved in medical decisions and are likely to ask about prescription drugs they have seen advertised, and doctors have less time under managed care to inform patients about drug risks.

And what about the drug companies who aren't telling the doctors about serious side effects that increase risks of patients taking the drugs? What's that about? Could it be these companies are afraid they won't make a big enough profit? Even if they did how is the doctor to do anything about lowering the risks? These companies make billions while patients are being treated no better than lab rats. It's about time a Court saw through this antiquated and outdated doctrine.

Chalk one up for the little guy.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.