Neurontin Lawsuit against Pfizer - Term Paper Example

Neurontin lawsuit against Pfizer Introduction Commercialization has spread all over the world and the greedy drug manufacturing companies don’t have much respect to the importance of human life. Drug manufacturing companies market their products without proper evaluation about the consequences of it and the people are suffering from it. Economical benefits often forces the drug manufacturers to keep a blind eye towards the legal and ethical aspects of their actions. Lozano (2004) has mentioned a lawsuit filed against Pfizer, the world’s largest drugmaker, for illegally promoting Neurontin for non-approved uses, by two Florida residents who were prescribed the epilepsy drug Neurontin for so-called “off-label” uses. The plaintiffs, Shirley Levin of Boca Raton and Ana Medero of Miami, were prescribed Neurontin for neuropathy, an unapproved use. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Neurontin as a supplementary treatment for epilepsy and certain nerve pain relating to shingles. But according to the lawsuit, patients were also prescribed Neurontin for conditions not approved by the FDA. Levin spent nearly $5,000 out of pocket for the drug, and Madero spent $10,000 and suffered hallucinations and other side effects. In May, Pfizer agreed to plead guilty and pay more than $430 million to settle all criminal charges and civil liabilities related to the illegal and fraudulent promotion of unapproved uses for Neurontin by Warner-Lambert’s Park-Davis division (Lozano) This paper briefly analyses the various economical, legal and ethical aspects involved in the above case. A brief history of the legal and economic issues associated with the case The above case involves lot of legal and economic issues. The major legal issue involved in this case is the criminal charges against Pfizer. Pfizer has cheated the public who put immense confidence on their abilities as the topmost drug manufacturer in the world. Pfizer has played with the life of human and they have given more importance to profit making. Moreover they have earned money giving false offers to the customers. The second legal or ethical issue associated with this case is with respect to medical ethics. Doctors, who have prescribed this medicine other than the one prescribed by FDA, taken bribes from Pfizer for doing so. Thus they violated medical ethics and gave least importance to human life The economical aspect of this case is that the plaintiffs lost a substantial amount of money for this medicine without any result. One of them lost $ 10000 while the other lost $ 5000. They did not get the results offered by Pfizer and on the contrary they have developed side effects. Legal and economic analysis of the various aspects of the case The government alleged that Pfizer boosted sales for Neurontin through non-approved uses by flying doctors to lavish resorts, paying them kickbacks as consultants’ and speakers’ fees for unapproved uses, and fired salespeople if they didn’t recruit enough doctors to prescribe Neurontin for pain (Lozano). One of the major drawbacks of American healthcare system is that doctors are free to prescribe drugs for uses not approved by the FDA. But manufacturers are prohibited from marketing the drugs for such uses that they have not established are safe and effective (Neurontin Lawsuit Results in $142M in Damages Against Pfizer). Pfizer exploited this law very well. They canvassed the doctors with the help of lavish briberies and forced them to prescribe this medicine for uses other than the one prescribed by FDA. Pfizer with their immense monopoly in the drug manufacturing department, used every mean to sell this drug for uses other than the one approved by FDA. It is difficult for the people to analyse each and every medicine prescribed by the doctors against the FDA regulations. People put 100% confidence in the abilities of the doctors whom they are consulting and what ever the medicines prescribed by them will be used by the people without further evaluation. Pfizer knows this fact very well and they tried to canvas reputed doctors in order to sell their medicines. Doctors on the other hand, have forgotten the medical ethics and the basic responsibilities of their profession. Changing life styles and increasing family expenses forced them to accept bribes from all corners. Pfizer mainly focussed on recruiting sales personnel who was able to canvas the doctors for executing their mission. The relationships between a patient and a doctor were a divine one earlier. It was a common belief that a doctor always try to save the life of a patient. The first priority of the medical profession is to save the life of patients at any cost. So patients when they reach hospital always felt a relief. Such beliefs and reliefs are vanishing from the current world because of the intrusion of commercialization in healthcare profession also. All the people, irrespective what profession or business they engage in, do evaluate things through a business eye. They keep their business or economical interests on the first place while doing their work. Doctors are also not free from the above curse. The heavy and lavish money given to them as bribes and compliments by Pfizer like companies forced the doctors to keep the professional ethics at a corner and deal all the patient cases like a business person. They give first priority to what they are getting out of treating a patient rather than what advantage or damage their treatment may cause to the patient. “The government also said Pfizer suppressed a study revealing the drug to be less effective than a sugar pill placebo in treating bipolar disorder, leaving both doctors and patients uninformed” (Lozano). It is evident from the above fact that Pfizer deliberately tried to gamble with the life of innocent people. Their studies clearly showed that this medicine is less effective for bipolar disorder and even then they continued the selling of this medicine. In other words, Pfizer did everything possible to loot the public money. If it was not causing any harm to the public health, the seriousness of the crime could have been diluted. Feeley and Lawrence (2010) written on Business week that Pfizer faces more than 1,000 lawsuits accusing it of illegally promoting Neurontin for unapproved uses and helping to cause some users’ suicides (Feeley and Lawrence). Bob Van Voris and Janelle Lawrence (2010) have written on Business week that “Pfizer engaged in a racketeering conspiracy of marketing Neurontin over a 10-year period (Voris and Lawrence). One of the interesting aspects of the above case is that the government or the FDA has not taken any actions upon Pfizer for a longer period even though many reports and law suits aroused due to the selling of Neurontin for diseases other than the one approved by FDA. In other words, even the controlling agencies failed to do their duties properly. The reputation of Pfizer and the public’s confidence on Pfizer prevented the regulating agencies from interfering in this matter. Marketing strategies have changed a lot in the current world. Drug manufacturers go to any extent for marketing their product. Business interests or the economical aspects always rule the business people rather than the legal or ethical aspects. Heavy marketing with the help of attractive sales promotions and advertisements using celebrities, brainwashes the poor public and they will use all the products without proper evaluation. It is difficult for the public to suspect a doctor’s prescription as all the doctors in America are qualified medical practitioners. It is difficult for the public to believe that a company like Pfizer knowingly engages in a marketing fraud. Pfizer forced to pay heavy amounts as compensation to many of the victims who used this drug and developed problems. They forced to settle the case in discussion with a huge amount of $430 million. Apart from this case, more than thousand cases charged against Pfizer over the same issue and in most of the cases, Pfizer found guilty and forced to pay heavy amounts to settle the cases. Even though, Pfizer earned lot of money through the selling of this drug, they forced to pay a substantial amount of money as compensation. Moreover, their reputation has been affected severely because of these marketing fraud activities. This incident will definitely affect the business interests of Pfizer in future also. New drugs from Pfizer will be evaluated twice by the people before they purchase it. The above case taught the people another lesson also. Even the big brands can engage in illegal activities. It is foolishness to run after brands even if they are so big and reputed. Evidence based medicines should be used instead of market based medicines. Commercialization has extended its hands to every segment of human life at present. Even the family relations are weighing against business interests at present. Under such circumstances, there is no point in putting immense belief upon anybody, how big or reputed they might be. Conclusions Pfizer, which is supposed to be the biggest drug manufacturer in the world, engaged in a marketing fraud which is evident from the cased discussed. There is no point in going after market based drugs, it is better to use the evidence based drugs. Pfizer has violated the civil and criminal law in this case and they forced to pay a heavy amount as compensation to the victims. The above case also explains how malicious medical profession in America is. Doctors have lost belief in medical ethics and they are playing like toys in the hands of the big drug manufacturers. Pfizer continued the marketing of the controversial drug for 10 years without many problems which clearly shows the loopholes in the healthcare system in America. Works Cited 1. Feeley, Jef and Lawrence, Janelle. 2010. “Pfizer Agrees to First Neurontin Lawsuit Settlement” 06 May 2010. 2. Lozano, Mario. 2004. 06 May 2010. 3. “Neurontin Lawsuit Results in $142M in Damages Against Pfizer”. 2010. 06 May 2010. 4. Voris Bob Van and Lawrence Janelle. 2010. “Pfizer Told to Pay $142.1 Million for Neurontin Marketing Fraud”. 06 May 2010. Read More