Merck Ordered to pay 4.5 Million to New Jersey Man, page 1

The Gamble for a New Jersey man pays off as he is awarded four and a half million dollars, after a jury determined that Merck's drug VIOXX was a contributing factor in the 77 year old heart attack. The second plaintiff in the case was not able to show proof that VIOXX was the cause of his heart attack. Merck`s Chief Executive will appear Thursday to explain Merck`s actions in relation to VIOXX.

today.re uters.com
ATLANTIC CITY, New Jersey (Reuters) - A jury on Wednesday found Merck & Co. failed to warn Vioxx users of the drug's heart risks and ordered it to pay a 77-year-old plaintiff at least $4.5 million in a decision that raises questions about the company's future defense of thousands of lawsuits filed over the medicine.

The jury determined that the company knew or should have known that its pain drug increased the risk of heart attacks and other cardiovascular events, but didn't adequately warn users or their doctors.

In a split decision after about 14 hours of deliberation, the jury said Vioxx had been a substantial contributing cause of a heart attack suffered by 77-year-old plaintiff John McDarby but determined that the drug was not a significant cause of a heart attack suffered by a second plaintiff, Thomas Cona.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I am kind of split minded on this.If VIOXX was indeed the cause if this mans heart attack then he deserves his money. But looking at the facts the Man is 77 years old and at a PRIME age for cardiac related issues I know that drug companies make a huge amount of profit. But there is also allot of research and development that goes into finding these drugs. Also I think that the Government and the FDA need to be help accountable for rubber stamping VIOXX and other drugs that should not be Approved for human use until ALL proper long term testes have been done.

[edit on 5-4-2006 by Truth_Hunter_1976]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

[edit on 10-4-2006 by asala]