Legal pressures and incentives for personalized medicine

Personalized Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 391-397

  Marchant, Gary E ^a   Milligan, Robert J ^a   Wilhelmi, Brian ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Failure to warn; Liability; Medical malpractice; Personalized medicine; Pharmacogenomics

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; LYME DISEASE VACCINE;

ARTICLE; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE; CHRONIC ARTHRITIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG CONTRAINDICATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LABELING; DRUG PREFERENCE; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; HEALTH INSURANCE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LAW SUIT; LYME DISEASE; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL LIABILITY; PHARMACIST ATTITUDE; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EID: 33845890008     PISSN: 17410541     EISSN: 1744828X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/17410541.3.4.391     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Palmer LI: Medical liability for pharmacogenomics. In: Pharmacogenomics: Social, Ethical, and Clinical Dimensions. Rothstein MA (Ed.), John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 187-206 (2003).
2. Rothstein MA: Liability issues in pharmacogenomics. Louisiana Law Rev. 66, 117-124 (2005).
3. Hotchkiss A, Erway CE: Burden of failure-to-warn pharmaceutical defendants - heed this warning. For the Defense 13-17 (2006).
4. Zineh I, Gerhard T, Aquilante CL, Beitelshees AL, Beasley BN, Hartzema AG: Availability of pharmacogenomics-based prescribing information in drug package inserts for currently approved drugs. Pharmacogenomics J. 4, 354-358 (2004).
5. A.L.R. 5th 1, Construction and Application of the Learned-Intermediary Doctrine (1991).
6. Perez v Wyeth Laboratories, 734 A. 2d 1245 (N.J. 1999).
7. Edwards v. Basel Pharmaceuticals, 933 P.2d 298 (Okla. 1997).
8. Food and Drug Administration: Federal Register, 71, 3921-3997 (Jan. 24, 2006).
9. Jackson v. Pfizer, Inc., 432 F.Supp.2d 964 (D.Neb., 2006).
10. American Law Institute: Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability.
11. Cupp RL: Rethinking conscious design liability for prescription drugs: the Restatement (Third) standard versus a negligence approach. George Wash. L. Rev. 63, 76-110 (1994).
12. Freeman v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 618 N.W.2d 827 (Neb. 2000).
13. Redick TP: Twenty-first century toxicogenomics meets twentieth century mass tort precedent: is there a duty to warn of a hypothetical harm to an 'eggshell' gene? Washburn Law J. 42, 547-574 (2003).
14. Palmer LI, Martin RCG, Hein DW: Chemopreventive drug treatment in subjects with genetic predisposition to cancer: prescriber liability and healthcare disparities. Pharmacogenomics 5 (3), 319-329 (2004).
15. Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Pharmacogenetics: Ethical Issues, Nuffield Council, London, UK (2003).
16. Adams v. G,D. Searle & Co., 576 So.2d 728 (Fla.Dist.Ct. App.), rev. denied, 589 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1991).
17. Stitt v. Philip Morris Inc., 245 F.Supp.2d 686 (W.D. Pa. 2002).
18. Lachance v. American Home Products Corp., No. 01-0890-CV-W-ODS, 2006 WL 89850 (W.D. Mo., Jan. 13, 2006).
19. Abbott A: With your genes? Take one of these, three times a day. Nature 425, 760-762 (2003).
20. Cassidy v. SmithKline Beecham, Amended Complaint, Class Action, 10, No. 99-10423, Court of Common Please, Chester County, PA, USA.
21. Okie S: Lyme disease vaccine's safety is questioned, Wash. Post, Apr. 8, 2001, at A3.
22. Thanassi WT, Schoen RT: The Lyme Disease vaccine: conception, development, and implementation. Ann. Intern. Med. 132, 661-668 (2000).
23. Nevers AH: ERISA right to sue: an Rx for healthcare that places form over substantive consumer rights. New Mexico Law Rev. 31, 493-537 (2001).
24. Hammer PJ: Pegram v. Herdrich: On peritonitis, preemption, and the elusive goal of managed care accountability. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 26, 767-787 (2001).
25. Pegram v Herdrich, 120 S. Ct. 2143 (2000).
26. Johnson SH, Schwartz RL, Greaney TL, Stoltzfus Jost T: Health Law. 2nd edition. West Group, Eagan, MN, USA §7-12 (2000).
27. Rothstein M, Epps PG: Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 228-231 (2000).
28. Molloy v Meier, 679 N.W. 2d 711 (Minn. 2004).
29. Geler v Akawie, 818 A. 2d 402 (N.J. App. 2003).
30. Paretta v Medical Offices for Human Reproduction, 760 N.Y.S. 2d 639 (2003).
31. Becker v Schwartz, 413 N.Y.S. 2d 865 (1978).
32. Schirmer v Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecologic Associates, Inc., 802 N.E. 2d 723 (Ohio App. 2003).
33. Breyne v Potter, 574 S.E. 2d 916 (Ga. App. 2002).
34. Didato v Strehler, 554 S.E.2d 42 (Va. 2001).
35. Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Civil) 3d Medical Malpractice 1.
36. A.R.S. Section 12-563.
37. Barrett v. Samaritan Health Services, Inc., 735 P.2d 460, 463 (App.1987).
38. Geler v Akawie, 818 A. 2d 402 (N.J. App. 2003).
39. Schirmer v Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecologic Associates, Inc., 802 N.E. 2d 723 (Ohio App. 2003).
40. Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd., 70 P.3d 435 (Ariz. 2003).
41. Gouveia v Phillips, 823 So. 2d 215 (Fla. App. 2002).
42. Furrow BR, Johnson SH, Schwartz RL, Greaney TL, Stoltzfus Jost T: Health Law. 2nd edition. West Group, Eagan, MN, USA 313-315 (2000).
43. Festa v. Greenberg 354 Pa. Super. 346, 511 A.2d 1371 (1986).
44. Helling v Carey, 519 P. 2d 981 (Wash. 1974).
45. Riedisser v. Nelson, 534 P.2d 1052 (Ariz. 1975).
46. Huang SW: Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990: redefining pharmacists' legal responsibilities. Am. J. Law Med. 24, 417-442 (1998).
47. Fern F, Bergman J: The pharmacist's evolving intellectual duty to warn. For the Defense 25-29 (2005).
48. Brock TP, Valgus JM, Smith SR, Summers KM: Pharmacogenomics: implications and considerations for pharmacists. Pharmacogenomics 4 (3), 321-330 (2003).
49. Carrico JM: Human Genome Project and pharmacogenomics - implications for pharmacy. J. Am. Pharm. Assoc. 40(1), 115-116 (2000).
50. Rothstein M, Epps PG: Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 228-231 (2000).