2 years, 2 months ago
Vioxx arthritis drug "not of merchantable quality" and has been taken off the market in Australia. Should other countries follow suit?
Federal Court judge Christopher Jessup awarded $287,000 in compensation today to Victorian grandfather Graeme Peterson, who claimed the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003.
Mr Peterson, 59, sued Merck claiming he was no longer able to work because of the heart attack.
Judge Jessup found Vioxx was "not of merchantable quality" and was not fit for the purpose of arthritic relief.
"I have concluded that across a population the consumption of Vioxx about doubled the risk of heart attack," Judge Jessop said.
( source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/arthritis-drug-vioxx-not-fit-for-sale-judge-rules-20100305-pn58.html )
Do you agree that the drug is not of merchantable quality if it causes heart attacks?
Should other countries follow suit?
Mr Peterson, 59, sued Merck claiming he was no longer able to work because of the heart attack.
Judge Jessup found Vioxx was "not of merchantable quality" and was not fit for the purpose of arthritic relief.
"I have concluded that across a population the consumption of Vioxx about doubled the risk of heart attack," Judge Jessop said.
( source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/arthritis-drug-vioxx-not-fit-for-sale-judge-rules-20100305-pn58.html )
Do you agree that the drug is not of merchantable quality if it causes heart attacks?
Should other countries follow suit?
Separate topics with commas, or by pressing return. Use the delete or backspace key to edit or remove existing topics.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
In my view, Vioxx arthritis drug should only be taken out off the shelf in drug stores in other countries after a thorough investigations by authorized and independent drug laboratories comes up with any known side effects. I don't think the drug is not of merchantable quality, since it's already in the market, that only goes to show that it is merchantable. But as to its adverse side effects, this must be look into in order to clear some cloud of doubt.
source(s):
Personal opinion.
Personal opinion.
images:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
" not of merchantable quality" is defined as
"not as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as is reasonable to expect having regard to their price, to any description applied to them by the seller and to all other circumstances."
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/soga1923128/s64.html
In this case the judge decided that the side effects ( heart attacks ) meant a reasonable person would not buy the product and be happy with its purpose. It can apply to goods already on the market because that's the way we often stop poor quality goods being sold/imported etc. Consider safety recalls, they are often because the product is not of merchantable quality because they can lead to death and that's not why you bought the product...