Compensation demanded over drug

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/wales/7479353.stm

Version 0 of 1.

The widow of a man who believes her husband's use of an anti-arthritis drug contributed to his fatal heart attack wants compensation from the drug firm.

Maureen Watt of Bargoed in Caerphilly county said her husband Alec's death was contributed to by his use of the now withdrawn Vioxx.

The parent firm of the drug's makers are paying £2.4bn to settle US lawsuits without admitting liability.

But said it was "entirely different" in the UK as no claims had been issued.

On the BBC's Politics Show programme, Mrs Watt said: "They're not doing anything about it. And, I mean, this is what makes me so angry.

"If they can pay the American people, why can't they pay us? Why are we so different?"

Withdrawn

Her case is being supported by Caerphilly MP Wayne David who wants the UK government to pressurise the drug company to give compensation to people who claim to be victims of its product.

Manufacturers Merck, Sharp & Dohme withdrew the anti-arthritis Vioxx pill after research linked it to increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death.

More than 26,000 separate lawsuits have been launched in the US against Merck, alleging the drug maker failed to alert users properly to the possible dangers of taking the painkiller, used to treat arthritis and other conditions.

Merck has always denied claims of negligence, maintaining that it voluntarily withdrew the drug in September 2004, following research suggesting its use could significantly increase incidence of heart attacks and strokes if taken for 18 months.

Mr David wants the UK government to put into practice a commitment to pressurise the drug company for compensation.

He said: "The government has made a very strong statement on the floor of the House of Commons that they need to put into practice.

No claims made

"They need to say very clearly to the company, if necessary behind closed doors, that if they're concerned about their reputation and their market, they must come to a reasonable deal with the people in this country."

Ms Watt and others who claim to have been affected by Vioxx say they can't take the financial risk of losing a court case.

A Merck, Sharp & Dohme spokesman told the BBC Politics Show programme the US resolution was 'for pragmatic reasons' unique to the US, where Merck won the majority of cases.

He said the UK situation was "entirely different" as no claims had been issued and examined by courts here.

He added that the fact a person became ill while taking Vioxx doesn't mean the medicine was in any way related to the illness.

If UK users bring claims, the company believes evidence would support a finding in its favour because of evidence it acted responsibly.

Claimants, it argues, would have suffered reported injuries whether or not they were taking Vioxx.

The Politics Show for Wales, with Jon Sopel and Adrian Masters on Sunday at 1200 BST on BBC One.