U.S. Widow awarded £140m - Merck shares looking unhealthy

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by frenchperson, Aug 20, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. $$$$ (or ££££££) or Euros will do

  2. To provide jobs and preside over a happy and contented workforce

    0 vote(s)
  3. A world full of healthy people who have no need for their products

    0 vote(s)
  4. A world full of healthy shareholders who need their products

    0 vote(s)
  1. If you want to avoid a stroke/heart attack, sell your Merck shares now.

    Oh, and stop taking Vioxx.

    I don't know - pharmaceutical firms' prime motivation is to help people live healthy lives, and look what happens, an ungrateful over-litigious individual, backed by a retinue of greedy lawyers robs them of £141m - money that could have been used to help long-suffering arthritis sufferers get some relief from their illness... what's the world coming to?

    And to add insult to injury, if the other 4,000 potential claimants worldwide reach a similar settlement, 4,000 x £141m is a rather large amount to pay even for this firm who are not in it out of self-interest and are doing their damndest to help their customers. Merck are appealing


    apologies for any tautologies
  2. All i'm going to say is even the claimant said 'it's not gonna bring my husband back'

    so why the feck did they decide to give her £140m?

    just another example of typical spam law! :roll:

    Don't get me wrong, Merck made a few really bad decisions and deserve to be punished, but what will a £140m fine make them do?

    they should be made to spend that money on developing a cure that really works!
  3. They will appeal and the award will be reduced.
  4. And I take it that you never, ever use anything manufactured by them? :roll:
  5. I may have done. Can't be sure. Anyway that's not important. What is important is the wonderful work they are doing across the globe:

    Link to site. There are pictures of happy people, butterflies and all sorts of lovely things here:

  6. Fortunately I'm not a Septic, so I do understand irony...

    Unfortunately, you've taken your usual posturing 'moral high ground' on yet another subject theat you know feck all about.
  7. From their careers page:

    "Here at Merck, we rally around the statement made in 1950 by George W. Merck, the son of our founder, - "We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits." And so, we're looking for people who will help us carry out our mission - preserving and improving human life"
  8. Even I wouldn't swallow that little bit of propaganda! Drug discovery is always driven by profits, it has to be because the companies have to make a profit to repay their shareholders and because of the astronomical cost of discovering, and proving the drugs. For three years I worked for a company that supplied large systems for compound storage and handling for the drug discovery industry. One of our customers was Merck. For one of their labs they bought over £20 million of kit from us, and thats the cheap part - companies like Merck can't get insurance for the compounds they hold because the values are so massive ($billions!).

    For every 100 'hits' they get for a potential drugs for a particular condition, maybe only three of those get to the point of human trials and only one to full FDA approval. All drugs have side effects - even paracetamol, so why is everybody suddenly suprised when something like this happens? As happened in this case some of those side effects aren't discovered until the drug has been on the market because the conditions that cause the problems were not foreseen in the trials. I am willing to take a bet that very few actually read the sheet that comes in the packaging, if they did they would probably wouldn't take the medication.
  9. Yes, the companies have to make a profit, and this has to be their overriding concern - that's the law. It's the bare-faced lying that leaves a bad taste. The public statements that you prefer to call 'propaganda'. If they're capable of untruths on a grand scale, they're also capable of malpractice, obfuscation, illicit dealings, price fixing, polluting the environment - whatever's necessary to keep them ahead of their competitors - and that's capitalism - if they don't behave on the edge of what's legally acceptable and pay careful attention to the window-dressing, they're ultimately sunk.

    It's just good to see that the man or woman in the street can have an occasional victory over them. And it's only right that they are checked every so often and made to pay for their arrogance
  10. People (not necessarily in this thread) seem to be under the misapprehension that the plaintiff in question will actually receive this whopping sum. To the best of my knowledge, she 'only' received $24.4m in actual damages and $229m in punitive payments.

    The punitive payment will reduce dramatically on appeal (they always do), by which time the more greedy legal teams will have assembled a class action against Merck to go over it all again.

    We can slate the US judicial system all we like - but it's good to see a massive global corporation, which cares not one iota for people like the Ernst's, being forced to confront its palpable guilt. Onto the next! :D
  11. It is my understanding that there are other suits out there INCLUDING a class action law suit so this is just the beginning for Merck. When its all said and done they will have to pay millions to the injured parties. I think Merck will recover. Companies that have to pay out to settle suits will raise the price of their products to recoup their losses. The real winners are the lawyers who receive 1/3 of any monies paid out.
  12. Surely the financial pay out should be the maximum that the individuals perceived ernnings over the rest of their life could be!

  13. Texas has a cap on jury awards- $1.6m.
  14. All very true, but the problem with this case was that merck had evidence that their were adverse side-effects associated with vioxx, but made a deliberate choice to keep that from the FDA and general medical community.