Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Should FDA Approval Waive Liability?

Filed under: Regulation , in the news...

You know who would make a logical spokesperson for medical liability policy? The guy who starred in the 1998 remake of The Parent Trap. That's right, Dennis Quaid is making the case that he should be able to sue pharma giant Baxter over a dosing error that nearly killed his baby twins...

Quaid last month urged Congress to preserve patients' rights to sue drug and device makers in state courts, after his twin newborns nearly died after accidentally overdosing on a blood-thinning drug sold by Baxter International. He has sued the company.

While Quaid's example is clearly ridiculous on account of the fact that it was a facility error, not Baxter's, Reuters goes on to highlight that...

...Democrats in Congress are considering legislation to protect a patient's ability to sue drugmakers if the Supreme Court further restricts the lawsuits, backing so-called "pre-emption" of state laws by federal.

This all, of course, comes in the wake of the recent decision that the manufacturer of a device that's gone through the PMA process cannot be held liable.

That said, the effect upon medical innovation of leaving the door open to liability at a state level would be disastrous. At best, it increases the legal overhead associated with doing business as a device or drug manufacturer, thus further increasing the cost of medical care.

However, worse than that, it takes the focus off of the root cause: the purpose of the FDA is to ensure the safety and efficacy of the medical products on the market. If a faulty product slips through (as is inevitably the case), the liability lies with the arbiter of "good enough": the FDA.

If being good enough for the FDA isn't, then the federal government might as well dissolve the agency and spend our tax dollars elsewhere, letting case law (and lay-person juries) decide what the public requires in terms of safety. Obviously a less desirable solution, but it remains the only logically intact one should we leave the door open for every ambulance chaser to try and extract a ransom from big-name medical manufacturers.

email this article to a friend      print this!           comments and peer reviews (4)






replies: 4 comments
Open comments are not moderated, although abusive and vulgar remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Medgadget.com. Please consult our disclaimer.

Quaid's example isn't quite as ridiculous as you make it sound. While the dosing error was due to an error at the hospital, there's an argument that the vials for the two types of doses (10,000 units/mL versus 10 units/mL) should be easier to distinguish between. Apparently they look almost identical, and there have been numerous incidents of the vials getting confused. Baxter even later issued a safety alert essentially acknowledging this problem, and telling hospitals to be more careful.


Posted by: Laurence
on June 25, 2008 02:46 AM GMT

Yes, but it is the nurses job to look at the drugs they are giving and confirm dosage. Certainly the company could differentiate bottles and the future, and hope they do, but nurses need to do their jobs. When we have found similar looking vials in our PYXIS near each other, we have the pharmacy rearrange them to prevent confusion. I would hate to see medical innovations/drugs delayed or never come to market because of further threat so lawsuits.

BTW, this is out of the WSJ: "The hospital identified three separate safety lapses, later verified by state investigators, that led to the overdoses, the Los Angeles Times reported earlier this year."

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/03/14/baxters-other-heparin-problem-dennis-quaid/


Posted by: Drew
on June 25, 2008 05:51 AM GMT

The question is did Baxter do everything they could to identify and minimize Risk? What does it say that they re-designed the bottle after a previous incident?

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/03/14/baxters-other-heparin-problem-dennis-quaid/

It's wrong to suggest the answer is to "train and blame" clinicians.
Usable design plays a major safety role, and manufacturers know it.


Posted by: Chris
on June 25, 2008 11:41 AM GMT

@ Chris: You can never do everything to minimize risk. There's an infinitum of ways people can screw things up.

The fact that they redesigned it after the incident points to an effective feedback mechanism in their quality system. The learned of a previously unanticipated risk and did something to address it. Had they done nothing in response, they would be in error.

If taking a corrective action amounts to an admission of guilt/negligence/liability, it will lead to less safe medical products over time.


Posted by: TimO
on June 25, 2008 06:33 PM GMT

add a comment
html tags: <b>, <i>, and <a>
examples: <b>Bold</b> <i>Italic</i>









Remember personal info?
(anonymous comments allowed)



click to make your selection boldclick to make your selection italicclick to add a link


Verification (needed to reduce spam):




Click the "Post" button only once!