Should The Fda Pay Or Merck

There are many direct to consumer advertising for prescription drugs. On television, magazines, radio etc, you see the most recent advertisements for prescription drugs. After some people see the advertisements they soon rush over to their doctor and their illness and life would be perfectly pain and stress free. Making the public conscious of options for treatment is not a bad thing. But these false advertisements are misleading consumers onto unnecessary treatment.

Advertisements have one primary purpose that is to persuade. Prescription medications Ads tell the consumers to get treatment and also imply that they have the need for it to solve their problems. Since prescription Ads have been introduced, the pharmaceutical industry has drastically increased. Manufactures of the pharmaceutical drugs are making more money now than ever.

The use of a supply and demand industry is used by the pharmaceutical industry. To have the sales of a product, the drug company or even the advertiser should create a demand in the market. No demand, or if no one needs the product, no sales will occur.

In the headlines recently, many different types of drug producing companies have been brought up for unethical findings in within the company and affecting the public. The two main companies are the FDA (Federal drug administration) and the drug producing company Merck. The FDA tests all drugs and gives the approval for them to be used by the general public. Merck and co is a drug producing company based in Whitehouse, N.J. Merck creates the drugs and has them tested by the FDA for the approval. Merck is also

the world's fifth largest pharmaceutical firm. Merck is best known for producing drugs such as Singular for Asthma and seasonal Allergic rhinitis, Fosomax for Osteoporosis, Cozaar/Hyzaar for high blood pressure, Vioxx and Arcoxia for arthritis and pain, Cancidas for infections, Cosopt for glaucoma, and Maxalt for migraines.

Merck will soon face many challenges in the business of producing drugs. The company's most popular drugs are coming to a close to their patent expiration. One of the best selling drugs is called Zocar, which is used for cholesterol problems. Zocar will have to soon face competition next June from other generic drug makers.

The elimination of Zocar from the market will erase the $5.2 billion sales annually. Fosomax, an osteoporosis relieving drug, produced by Merck will soon lose the$ 2.2 billion annual sales because of the expiration of its patent. Also, another problem is the struggles recently to find new medicines.

The prescription painkiller drug, which was introduced in 1999, is called Vioxx. Vioxx was introduced by Merck and co. Vioxx served the purpose of being a painkiller in the relief of osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, painful menstruation and other types of acute pain. This painkilling drug would be classified as a non-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs). Last year, in September 2004, Merck withdrawed Vioxx, off the market. Studies of Vioxx showed that it doubled the risk of a heart attack or stroke for patients who have used it more than 18 months. After Merck, withdrawed Vioxx from the market, the FDA, issued a public health advisory for the users of Vioxx. Therefore, Vioxx was on the market for five years without enough warnings about the risks, after 20 million people throughout Americans have used it.

The most recent case against the prescription drug Vioxx, started last November of 2005. The case was filed by a widow, named Evelyn Irvin Plunkeet. Her late husband Richard Irvin Jr., passed away in May of 2001, at the age of 53. Irvin worked as a manager of a wholesale seafood distributorship in St.Augustine, Florida. Mr. Irvin took this Vioxx, for back pain, and was then later on found dead at his desk. Mr. Irvin was taking a dosage of 25 milligrams.

The trial of the current case is being held in Houston, Texas. The Jury consists of five men and four women. The lawyer of Ms.Plunkets case is Andy Birchfield of Montgomery, Alabama. Mr.Birchfield claims that Merck had prior knowledge that Vioxx had safety issues before it was introduced to consumers. He also says that Merck had a "Premeditated, financial decision". (Times) This decision meant that it didn't give patients advance notice about the risks because it was more concerned about the revenue accumulation.

Merck's, Defense attorney Phillip S. Beck, claims that the pain relieving drug did not trigger the heart attack that caused the death of Mr. Irvin. Mr. Beck also concludes that the company Merck acted responsibly in creating and marketing the drug the consumers. Mr. Beck says "Mr.Irvins problem was not that he took Vioxx", "It was that he had coronary Heart disease". (Times)

Merck's primary defense is to show that the company did do all in its power to take precautions to make sure that the drug was not dangerous for consumers use. So the lawyers will have to make the jurors believe that these precautions were within reason. Since the FDA allowed approved Vioxx, Merck feels that they have a good position, that the company couldn't have acted negligent when they put the product into the market.

This