Merck is not Philip Morris

By ACSH Staff — Nov 18, 2004
To the Editor: Your editorial ("The Merck Case" Nov. 15th) correctly deplores the tactics of tort lawyers in their quest to dismember Merck and get a piece of the billions likely to be re-distributed subsequent to the Vioxx withdrawal. But you are wrong to conflate the needless and unjust assaults on the pharmaceutical industry with the well-justified litigation against the tobacco industry.

To the Editor:
Your editorial ("The Merck Case" Nov. 15th) correctly deplores the tactics of tort lawyers in their quest to dismember Merck and get a piece of the billions likely to be re-distributed subsequent to the Vioxx withdrawal. But you are wrong to conflate the needless and unjust assaults on the pharmaceutical industry with the well-justified litigation against the tobacco industry.
The cigarette companies are still flourishing, despite having rightfully been in the "sights" of the lawyers for over a decade. Their intention is not to heal, but to harm--well, their intention is to sell cigarettes, but they are indifferent to the horrific toll of disease and death caused by their products, which amounts to the same thing.
If the tobacco industry stood at the bar of "scientifically knowledgeable experts" and not "overly sympathetic jurors," it would be put out of business as a consequence of appropriate compensatory and punitive damages.

Gilbert Ross M.D.
Medical Director, The American Council on Science and Health
1995 Broadway
New York NY 10023
212-362-7044 x242
[email protected]
fax 362-4919

Category