Walter Olson on medical tort reform
He is the best. His blog, Overlawyered, should go on your daily routine. Here is his update – Kinsley: GOP is right on malpractice
The Neurontin story
On May 30th I ranted The whistle blower and Warner-Lambert . Today I found an interview with the whistle blower – Drug giant accused of false claims
DAVID FRANKLIN: “I was trained to deceive, to lie to doctors.”
John Hockenberry: “So these doctors were completely misled?”
Franklin: “Absolutely.”
Who would train and then pay someone to mislead doctors? Scientist David Franklin says pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert paid him to do that back in 1996.
Franklin: “It was my responsibility to leverage the trust that physicians had with pharmaceutical companies to corrupt the relationship between the physician and the patient.”
John Hockenberry: “Your job was to find trust, and exploit it, to produce more sales for Warner-Lambert.”
Franklin: “Absolutely.”
Read this account (I assume some readers watched the show) on an empty stomach. The story may cause nausea and disgust.
The pharmaceutical industry has done wonderful things over that past 3 decades. Our quality of life has greatly improved. Our ability to treat many diseases has become enhanced. Just when I start to soften on the industry, I read a story like this. Once again I have anger at the industry.
What are they thinking?
I hope readers understand that I am happy to criticize both parties. The Democrats behavior concerning tort reform and the Bush administration’s persistent war on medical marijuana both deserve scorn. Today the Justice Department should feel db’s Wrath! White House escalates pot war: It asks high court to let doctors be punished
The Bush administration, pressing its campaign against state medical marijuana laws, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let federal authorities punish California doctors who recommend pot to their patients.
The administration would revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who tell their patients marijuana would help them, a prerequisite for obtaining the drug under the state’s voter-approved medical marijuana law.
Justice Department lawyers this week asked the high court to take up the issue in its next term, which begins in October. The department is appealing a ruling by an appellate court in San Francisco that said the proposed penalties would violate the freedom of speech of both doctors and patients.
If the justices agree to review the case, it would be their first look at medical marijuana since May 2001, when they upheld the federal government’s authority to close down a pot dispensary in Oakland and others in the state.
The October decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco “effectively licensed physicians to treat patients with prohibited substances” and interfered with the government’s authority “to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety,” Justice Department lawyers Mark Stern and Colette Matzzie wrote in court papers. The appeal “is a sign that this administration will do everything they can to defeat the will of the voters of California and many other states,” said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer for doctors, patients and AIDS support groups. Those groups sued the federal government in 1997 over the policy, which the Clinton administration originally introduced but later decided not to pursue.
In many ways this appeal aggravates me for the same reasons that tort lawyers aggravate me. In my opinion, the Justice Department lawyers want to make medical decisions. They have decided (without any clear data) that medical marijuana (1) does not help patients and (2) endangers the public health. Who are they to decide? Why is this a court issue?
Medicine, while based on scientific principles, does require some artistry. Patients have circumstances which require creative solutions. If some patients and some physicians believe that marijuana can help symptoms (especially lack of appetite and nausea), then any law against that is a law against compassionate care.
But then, why would I expect lawyers to understand? Their training and jobs involve decoding the law in ways that help the side that engages them. While truth is important, truth is not the only goal. Oft times lawyers must (and this is not meant as criticism) ignore truth so that they can advocate for their client. Here the Justice Department has (in my opinion) misunderstood their client. I wonder if the majority of our citizens would favor their interpretation here. Hopefully the Supreme Court will not accept the case. If they do, I hope they show common sense.
