|
Heparin Lawsuit: Areas of Inquiry
As the lawsuits explode on the scene of the heparin cases, here are some issues that need to be addressed:
1. How do we know that this catastrophe began with September of 2007 produced product, and not much earlier? Doctors, medical examiners and pathologists had no basis to suspect heparin in any deaths prior to January of 2008. Unfortunately, as most of those receiving heparin were already very sick, a suspicious death or reaction might just have been attributed to the already compromised health of the person receiving heparin. Will the FDA, Baxter, the CDC go back and do additional surveillance of all deaths in dialysis patients in the period prior to the fall of 2007, to see if there is a pattern that was previously missed?
2. What is the precise method of death and morbidity caused by this contaminant in the heparin? Is it strictly a anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction, or is there something more complex going on?
3. If it is anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction, has the patient been sensitized to the contaminant because of earlier treatments (such as with a prior bee sting) and then has the anaphylactic reaction upon the later treatment (the second bee sting)?
4. What health risks/disabilities have those with adverse reactions who survived faced? Are they at greater risk of anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction in the future? Do they need to carry precautionary warnings, medications with them?
5. What about the thousands of those exposed to this toxin, who did not have an adverse reaction? If the issue is anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction, are they at greater risk of anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction in the future because they have now had the equivalent to the first bee sting?
6. In the survivors, is there any risk of organ damage or brain damage as a result of the cardiac or hypotensive events that occurred?
7. If the pathology is broader than an anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction what other damage did it do to the bodies of those who survived?
8. What diagnostic tests should be being performed on the survivors? MRI of the brain, EKG’s. Clearly, it would seem imperative to do kidney function tests, on the hemodialysis survivors.
9. What about all of those exposed to the toxins, without a clinically significant acute reaction? This exposure presumably went on for weeks and even months. Could they have chronic damage with a more subtle manifestation?
 The lawsuits provide the best mechanism to get to the bottom of these issues, but we hope that Baxter, its joint venture participants, the CDC, the FDA and other government agencies will be pondering these issues and looking for the truth, not just pointing fingers.
Next: FDA Press Releases
For information on the recall, click here:
FDA Information
To contact us, call 800-992-9447.
g@gordonjohnson.com
Gordon Johnson is the Owner of the Johnson Law Office.
©Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. 2008 |
To contact us
call 800-992-9447
For Our Latest Information on Heparin go to our Blog:
Heparin Glossary
Regulator says hospitals need strict heparin rules
The New England Journal of Medicine: MIT Study
FDA: Heparin Warning
Contaminated Heparin Can Do More than Kill
Heparin Lawsuit: Areas of Inquiry
FDA Press Releases
Scott v. Baxter Lawsuit
Reporting Heparin Problems
Understated Adverse Reactions
Baxter Widens Heparin Recall
FDA Intercepting Heparin
FDA Plans For Full-Time Staff in China
Heparin Purity - China Doesn't Seem to Care
Baxter Didn't Know About Absence of Inspection
German Heparin Also Contaminated
Heparin Contaminant Identified
Heparin Recall Timeline
Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2008
Disclaimer
The materials on this World Wide Web site are provided purely for informational purposes and are not legal advice. These materials are intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and current. This web site is advertising but is not intended as legal advice. Therefore, the reader should not consider this information an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act or rely upon any information contained in this World Wide Web site and should always seek the advice of competent counsel.
The owner of this web site is a law firm, the Johnson Law Office of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. Attorney Gordon S. Johnson, Jr. is responsible for the content of this website, and all of the pages linked hereto containing the copyright notice: ©Attorney Gordon Johnson. The Johnson Law Office is licensed to practice in the States of Wisconsin , Illinois and Michigan. The Johnson Law Office does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon their viewing any portion of this World Wide Web site that fails to comply with all legal and ethical rules in such individual's state. The Johnson Law Office makes no representation that it can obtain the same results as reported in this web site in other legal matters.
The transmission of an e-mail request for information does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are a client, remember that e-mail may not be secure. Further, when you send an email to a law firm that you have not retained as your attorney, you are may risk disclosing confidential information. Our law firm may ultimately have a conflict of interest with you and you risk making a disclosure of confidential information to a firm that could represent an adversary or someone whose interest could become adverse to you in some way. For this reason we believe it is a far better practice to call with questions rather than email. 800-992-9447. This is the reason that our websites do not include client intake forms found on so many other lawyer and lawyer referral sites.
WE BELIEVE THAT THE FAR PREFERRED METHOD FOR YOU TO CONTACT US IS BY PHONE AT
1-800-992-9447.
Gordon Johnson is the Owner of the Johnson Law Office.
©Attorney Gordon Johnson, 2008
|
