U.S. court voids drug rep's conviction, cites free speech

Comments (6)
RajeshJersey wrote:

First Amendments Vs Accountability of recommendations made by medical professionals.

Compare this situation with investment advisors. Investiment advisors recommentation are easy to measure and track over a period of time. Only money is at stake. Now look a the case of medical advice given by a sales representative. Here human health is at stake. I can’t help but insist on regulations that curbs untested and not-validated medical advice.

Dec 03, 2012 10:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
tyg wrote:

This is a ridiculous decision. How can a “Judge” not be able to differentiate between promotion created to garner sales and a medical decision to be made by scientists? Maybe this is an economic decision moreso than a public health decision. Can FDA defend its position? The first amendment should not be used to protect pharmaceutical companies, but to protect individual speech on a personal level. This judge seems to have confused economic motives with freedom of expression by a human being. These pharmaceutical companies are not human beings when they gouge the public for profit and create now along with federal appeals judges an even more unequal society. Who is paying off this judge? There is a reason for the FDA approval process, medical investigation, and good scientific support for drug uses which will not harm or lead to the overuse of drugs. If Judge Chin’s decision truly prevails there really is less of a need to continue to investigate drugs for more uses than their original approved indications; but this may also mean that doctors already inundated by drug promotion will likely be making more errors. These errors for which it is documented or “understood” should also be reasons to withdraw drugs from the market as well as for firms to pull drugs from the market. This will all make sense truly only for pharmaceutical companies. Again the public is shortchanged by our court systems. Who paid off Judge Chin?

Dec 04, 2012 12:53am EST  --  Report as abuse
Marvin8 wrote:

Dumbest decision I’ve seen in quite some time. Sales reps promote strictly for the purpose of sales. If a doctor suggests a medication for off-label use, at least HE is both informed and accountable. NO WAY should a pharma sales rep be allowed to promote off-label use. NO WAY. Yes, the drug may not harm, but it might be entirely ineffective for the off-label use without proper research data and the stamp of FDA approval. Yes, as flawed as the FDA is, I’d still take their approval over the recommendation of a freakin’ sales rep. This is just plain ridiculous.

Dec 04, 2012 1:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
psw003 wrote:

Comment here seem to be completely ignorant of pharmaceutical issues. Many drugs have been evidence for their off label uses then they do for their FDA approved uses. FDA approval is incredibly expensive and corrupt. Commenters here don’t even know they are pleading for higher drug costs and fewer healthcare options. Keep drinking that government koolaid

Dec 04, 2012 2:31am EST  --  Report as abuse
ConstFundie wrote:

An absolute travesty of justice.

@psw003 i think we are quite aware of pharmaceutical “issues”. Legalized deceit and drug dealing, with kick backs to doctors, researchers, and politicians. And NO accountability. The FDA is corrupt because the leadership of the FDA and the big pharm companies are one and the same. A revolving door connects the two.

Off label is largely another name for selling an expensive and dangerous drug and for a placebo effect. Homeopathy and sugar pills are safer.

Dec 04, 2012 1:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
justhnk wrote:

I hope none of those commenting here are health care workers because, if your understanding of the law reflects upon your understanding medicine, it’s no wonder we should regulate you instead of trust you to make good clinical decisions.
The defendent’s right to free speech is protected. Plain and simple. He can say whatever he wants, true or not. If that wasn’t the case, the recent election should have been frought with cases against both candidates.
Having said that, corporations cannot say whatever they want. And the FDA has done an adequate job regulating the drug companies- case in point, the $5.5 billion dollars referenced in the cases against two major pharma players.
Physicians are rigorously trained to think critically and make good decisions for the benefit of their patients. They should be trusted to make those decisions and if they make a bad decision because of what a drug rep tells them, they should be pursued for malpractice. We have systems in place to protect patients and consumers. We don’t need the federal government micromanaging our thoughts and words.

Dec 05, 2012 9:37am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.