1
Discussion #1: Consider the Wyeth v. Levine case. What was the holding? Do you agree
with it and why? What ethical principles guide you? In light of that holding, what
advice would you give to a pharmaceutical company that is deciding how to label a new
drug?
The Wyeth V. Levine Case of 2009 in the Supreme Court of the United States
involved Diana Levine, a woman who had encountered severe complications after being
given a medical injection of anti-nausea by Wyeth, Phenergan. The significant method that
was used was the IV-Push methodology, which contributed to the subsequent gangrene
amputation of the arm of Levine. The main issue of the case was whether Wyeth had warned
adequately based on the underlying risk linked with the IV-push injection method. The
central holding of the United States Supreme Court was on the side of Dina Levine with the
argument that the federal rules and regulations didn't pre-empt the state laws in the claims,
and Wyeth had failed in offering adequate warning based on the underlying risks on the use
of the injection method. The decision from the Supreme Court emphasized that the
companies dealing with pharmaceuticals had the duty of offering precise and sufficient
information based on the warning about underlying risks linked to the product.
I agree with the Supreme Court's argument that the pharmaceutical companies were
on the wrong side of the case, as they should indicate the potential consequences of risk
associated with the use of particular methods or products. I would argue based on ethical
principles guiding decision-making, such as the autonomy that entails the respect of
individual's autonomy involving the provision of comprehensive information in making
informed decisions and choices about one's health. Adhering to the individual's autonomy is
aligned with the main idea that the patients in a hospital have the freedom and right to
comprehend the potential risks and consequences linked to the use of a particular drug.
