A few recent law suits have brought to light the fact that sometimes the doctors, researchers and even government organizations charged with maintaining public health and safety do not have our best interests at heart. In fact, sometimes they're just trying to make money, regardless of potential dangers that could be caused to the public. One of the most important regulatory bodies in the U.S. is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA.) In theory, members of the FDA prevent dangerous or defective medicines and medical devices from being released to the public.
Unfortunately this theory doesn't always convert to reality. This week, a lawsuit was brought by six former FDA employees who are suing the FDA for allegedly monitoring their emails and then punishing them for complaining to Congress about FDA approval being given to dangerous devices. In a perfect world, the FDA would be prosecuting agency members that knowingly approved dangerous medical devices for public use, not the other way around. Unfortunately, in this situation, this was clearly not the case. In a five page letter released on Wednesday, Senator Charles E. Grassley ordered an investigation into the issue, demanding that the FDA Commissioner disclose who authorized email monitoring, how many employees were under surveillance and whether any passwords were obtained by the agency. Grassley also wants to know whether the surveillance, which lasted for two years, is still in effect.
One of the key players at the heart of this scandal is Paul Hardy, lead FDA reviewer for a machine designed to detect signs of breast cancer. Hardy refused to approve the device, saying that it didn't work and wasn't as good as products currently on the market, but the device was approved for sale to the public, despite the fact that many of Hardy's managers agreed with his assessment. When he reported this fact via email to members of Congress, FDA officials monitoring his communications intercepted the email and Hardy was fired, ostensibly for disclosing confidential information. Five other FDA employees met with the same fate under similar circumstances. When an agency charged with the mission of protecting consumers from unsafe products fires employees for attempting to do that, the problems facing those individuals who are dependent on medications or medical devices becomes clear. Without rigorous testing and screening processes, the public is left vulnerable to injury at the hands of large pharmaceutical companies.
Equally disturbing is a recent legal trend to block the open and honest review of members of the medical community on public ratings sites like Yelp or RateMd.com. For patients looking to find the best quality of care possible, user-based reviews of physicians can often be extremely helpful in choosing between doctors that you've never before met. Doctors are now trying to take that resource away from patients. From forcing patients to sign "do-not-talk" contracts prior to providing medical services, to pursuing legal action against patients and websites that post negative reviews about them, many doctors are trying to prevent public dissemination of negative feedback about their services. Not only do such actions infringe on freedom of speech, they keep information about dangerous doctors out of the hands of the public, meaning more patients could be susceptible to harm at the hands of an unequipped physician.
While the risks associated with the development of new medications and treatments are a reality we must face, trying to prevent the public from finding out about these risks, or worse still, actively covering up essential medical information in order to maintain profit margins, is completely unacceptable. If you have been injured by a dangerous drug, even if it was FDA approved, it is vital that you speak to a
medical injury attorney immediately to learn about your rights. You can learn more by speaking with an associate form our firm.
Contact a drug injury lawyer from Arnold & Itkin today for a free and confidential legal consultation.