The Rest of the Story

Recently I wrote a post citing an editorial from the journal, The Lancet. In that post, I commented that The Lancet  is a fairly conservative journal, as most medical journals are. Yet, in that same issue, there was a blistering critique of the Bush Administration, in a different editorial, about a different topic:


Their use of the term "activist," in this context, contains a certain understated irony; it's a good example of classic British humor. It's a serious matter, though. If, indeed, the Administration wants to reserve the right to be critical of the judicial branch, on account of alleged "activism," then they need to clean their own (glass) house first. Of course, if they had their way entirely, it would not be a glass house: transparency would be a thing of the past.

Rant tangents aside, what is the beef that they are getting on about.?

It turns out that the editors of The Lancet  have noticed a peculiar trend in behavior at the US FDA.  Our Food and Drug Administration is taking it upon themselves to file briefs in medical liability cases.  The Editorial notes that, in the past, the FDA would file such a brief only in response to a request by the court.  Now, though, it appears that they are doing this spontaneously. 

Personally, I wonder just how spontaneous it really is.  That is, I suspect that they are acting upon requests, not from the courts, but from the pharmaceutical companies that have a stake in the outcome of the cases.  I do not have any direct evidence of this, but the Editorial points out some circumstantial evidence:


I mean, really, how is the FDA even going to know about these cases?  Do they monitor court dockets around the country, looking for tort cases in which pharmaceutical products have been alleged to be the cause of harm?  That would take a lot of time and money, and it seems doubtful that the FDA has people all around the country going into courthouses to look for such cases.  No, it is far more likely that legal firms have an inside connection at the FDA.  A case comes up, they call their buddy a the FDA, and, sort of like magic, the Federal Government  -- acting at taxpayer expense -- writes up a brief that is highly advantageous for the defense. 

The Editorial mentions Pfizer specifically.  I have nothing against Pfizer.  They make some great products.  And I tend to be skeptical of cases against such companies.  Indeed, the Editorial states:


There are two problems with the FDA's "activist" stance, though.  One is that it is not the proper role of the Administrative Branch of the government to interfere with the Judicial Branch.  The second is that this is being done with public funds.  Both would appear to be at variance with traditional conservative values.  Unless you count good ol' boy cronyism as a traditional conservative value. 

Note: the opinions expressed here are those of the Corpus Callosum.  They are not necessarily congruent with the opinions of the editorial board at The Lancet.