News Review

Jury Says Merck Properly Warned Patients About Vioxx Risks
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 3, 2005

I decided to read this article because members of my family have had to take Vioxx before and when these stories made headlines we were very concerned about the risks associated with this particular drug.

After 7 and a half hours of deliberation in the case surrounding the Vioxx case and whether or not there was proper warning of risks of heart attack and stroke, the jury ruled that Merck and Co. was not liable for the heart attack of a 60 year old man from Boise, Idaho. Frederick "Mike" Humeston , a postal worker, suffered a heart attack after taking Vioxx for an extended period of time and sued Merck and Co. for failing to present information of the possible risks associated with this drug. Merck ended up winning the suit by proving there is no evidence of heart risks in those who take Vioxx for less than an 18 month period of time, which is where Humeston fell.

I agree with the jury on this one. If there is no solid medical evidence, there is no way the consumer could have been warned about the heart risks associated with taking a drug. I think that the jury made the correct decision in this case.