Posted on 12/02/2002 11:11:09 AM PST by Nov3
Lilly settled the case last week for an undisclosed amount. The lawsuit, which sought $4.84 million in tangible damages, had been scheduled to go to trial Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh.
The complaint was filed two years ago by Diane Cassidy and her husband Melvin. In July 2000, the Monroeville, Pa., couple picketed outside Lilly's Indianapolis headquarters, handing out fliers proclaiming, "Lilly, how many people are maimed or dead on your drug today?"
The overdose caused intracranial bleeding, which left Cassidy paralyzed on one side and mentally impaired, according to the lawsuit.
The Cassidys were represented by Houston trial lawyer Andy Vickery, who has negotiated settlements of several Prozac cases against Lilly.
Lilly said in a statement that it "made a business decision to settle ... for factors completely unrelated to the safety and efficacy of Prozac," The Indianapolis Star reported in a story Saturday. "Such factors included the extensive time demands that litigation would have placed upon our scientists, keeping them away from their primary objective of discovering lifesaving medicines."
Also last week, a new Prozac lawsuit was filed against Lilly in U.S. District Court in Georgia.
It raises a new claim that has not been raised in previous lawsuits over Prozac, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1987 and went on to become Lilly's top-selling drug.
The Georgia wrongful-death lawsuit alleges Lilly failed to publicize research showing some people are "poor metabolizers of Prozac," and a test can reveal if a patient might be affected.
That lawsuit, in which Vickery is assisting the plaintiff, was brought by William H. Shell, the widower of LaVerne M. Shell. She shot herself to death at age 63 in November 2000, 11 days after starting on a prescription of Prozac to treat migraine headaches.
The lawsuit says that a human enzyme dubbed CYP2D6 normally metabolizes or breaks down Prozac and similar drugs in the body, but fails to do so in a minority of people. In their bodies, the active ingredient in Prozac builds up to high levels, putting them at risk of violence and suicide, the lawsuit says.
Lilly spokesman Blair Austin said that company officials had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on the new allegation.
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
Well...can be. But people sometimes get so cuddly and laidback on the stuff that they start enjoying food more. I've seen a lot of good done with these classes of drugs. When you start giving lawyers a big percentage of the profits, you can count on increased prices and decreased availability.
Why don't the patients go ahead and prescribe it themselves?
The answer to both of those questions would be that they aren't doctors.
I be a lot of victims would have preferred that Eli Lilly charge more and market it more carefully. NOw the lawyers get the money from the insurance companies. Lilly gets their cash long ago and the victims are largely left out in the cold
I was informed of a 1% risk. If they flat out lied and caused me to take a bigger risk with my child than I would have accepted... I don't know what I will do. Enriching the lawyers seems ridiculous. But how else do we force them to be honest?
Off label uses are an important and necessary part of medicine. However when a manufacturer promotes a tool and I believe a drug for some other use than it was approved for I believe it can be called misbranding by the FDA in some cases. This is not good for the company as far as legal protections are concerned. A doctor choices in treatment are one thing, the drug or tool companies choices are another.
That being said I think Lilly immediately came out and said that prosac should not be used as an adjunct to phentermine in weight loss when Phen-fen was pulled and doctor started subbing prosac. That would make it an off label use by a doctor.
First, you should inform yourself. I understand the desire to trust doctors though. Second, the risk needs to be traded off against results. Studies have shown placebos are as effective as these drugs, keeping in mind that the placebos are effective because people believe they are a drug that they have been told can make them better. Third, the right way to solve a medical problem is medical reform, not suing companies because risk assessments were inconclusive or inapplicable to *your* case in any event.
Errrrr Elli Lillyonly says it is one percent. She was lied to.
Third, the right way to solve a medical problem is medical reform, not suing companies because risk assessments were inconclusive or inapplicable to *your* case in any event.
Wrong answer. Eli Lilly recklessly sold this drug to everyone for everything to make MORE money. They could have made plenty just marketing it responsibly and reporting side effects. They should pay through the teeth if they caused the death and injury of others due to their actions or inaction. Our law does not allow them to be jailed. Only a deluded IDIOT would think they should walk away with the money after they trashed peoples lives.
I read the patient insert. I questioned the Dr. What else am I supposed to do?
Medical reform like what? The drug companies are already not supposed to falsify information. The FDA is supposed to be making sure that they are honest. Again, I don't know if they were dishonest in this case.
It wasn't something weird, bizarre or unknown which happened to my son. Everyone knows this happens SOMETIMES. And if my kid was the one out of 100 patients affected this way, then that is perfectly fine. We knew we were taking a risk.
But if the rates of mania in non-manic patients is much higher than the drug company has stated, then I was denied the right to make an informed medical decision. THAT is my concern.
How about for smoking cessation? I have heard of a doc prescribing it for that too. Actually he didn't prescribe it he handed it out.
Yeah I agree. These people should just bend over and take it like a man. A gay man that is. I hope you get the chance to show the way you feel in your personal life. Maybe someone can hide the failings of a product and someone maybe your son dies as a result. You will be a real role model and inspiration to everyone here when you stand on principle and let it go on and happen again to someone else because you don't want to run up the cost of doing business!
That is the right thing to do. Just let it go on.
Why do you think they maximize the revenue from this single drug? Is it the prohibitive testing costs for finding any possible risk from a new drug? Is it the threat of new lawsuits should any new drug be "shown" by a trial lawyer to "cause" injury?
The reason these drugs work for all these things is basically a placebo effect. That's how it works for depression and probably many other psychological illnesses and behaviors. People believe it works and the incidental chemical effect in the brain makes no difference. Other psychoactive drugs are much more disruptive to brain chemistry, they have no healing effect, the patient simply has to do that himself.
I don't know the merits of these various lawsuits, but I do know that they are not generally used to punish wrongdoers. Usually the costs are passed to insurance companies, shareholders, and consumers.
And you rec'd your MD where?
Just because in certain studies the effect was the same, does not mean that these were valid studies and applicable to everyone - there are many ways to set these studies up. To jump to such conclusions, regardless of how it is reported, is irresponsible. Since we are dealing with brain chemistry, there may be significant differences between those who get better on the drug versus those in the control group getting better with a placebo.
If belief is so important, why didn't I get better with Prozac? God knows I thought I would. But I didn't. Perhaps I should have tried harder?!?
I consider that my meds work, and that has yet to happen to me. I can be just as snarly as the rest of you people not on them.
This wasn't quite the 'chill pill' I mentioned on the other thread ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.