If the harm caused by the drug [Vioxx] (legal or otherwise) outweighs any benefit from having the drug on the market, then you have a legitimate public health policy reason for taking the drug off the market.

Ah, but here is a slippery slope, indeed.

All drugs carry the risk of adverse side effects, and determining the risk/benefit ratio can be tricky.

I am personally well acquainted with an individual who suffers from osteoarthritis, and she is quite definitive when it comes to quality of life vs. longevity issues. She would accept the <1% risk in a heartbeat (pun intended) rather than suffer the pain, immobility, and loss of quality of life caused by the disease. There are less effective alternatives to Vioxx, but if they prove unsatisfactory I would say the chances are high that she will die sooner than would have been the case with a possibly Vioxx-induced heart attack.

In the case of this particular drug, I feel that the benefits do outweight the potential for harm, if the user is made aware of the risks and is allowed to make his own decision. Unfortunately, due to our over-protective nanny-government, that option is no longer available.

tanstaafl.