Group Blawg

Fresh Insight into Popular Legal Topics

You are here: Home / Archives for medical

medical

Vaping Illnesses: Who’s At Fault?

by Leave a Comment

As of October 3rd, there were 19 deaths related to vaping illnesses. With such an industry-wide scare, questions of class-action lawsuits are beginning to arise. With the exact cause of the illnesses yet to be determined, it can be hard to figure out who’s at fault. The e-cigarette brand JUUL has already been at the center of lawsuits due to their highly-addictive flavored nicotine products, said to be targeted at minors. Unfortunately, the recent outbreak of illnesses is harder to pin down, making the target of any wrongful death cases difficult to find.

 

Unknown Cause

With the expansion of the e-cigarette market, the number of manufacturers of both e-cigarettes and vape liquid has exploded, with not all of them following the regulations laid out by the FDA, or even registering as manufacturers. This has opened up a dangerous black market of vapes and vape liquids containing products the purchaser might be entirely unaware of. Due to the sub-legal nature of many of these manufacturers, defective product and product liability cases could prove to be difficult, but not impossible. 

 

Multiple Manufacturers

Unlike JUUL cases, vaping illnesses appear to be related to multiple manufacturers. While there have been common ingredients between products used by patients prior to their hospitalization, mainly vitamin E oil, and various THC products, the exact cause is still under investigation. Until a specific manufacturer, whether of a liquid product, ingredient, or device is found, there is no one obvious to litigate against. 

 

What Can Be Done

At an individual level, if you or a loved one are suffering or experienced a wrongful death due to vaping-related lung illness and have an idea of what product caused it, contact a personal injury or product liability, attorney. Don’t let manufacturers get away with cutting corners at the expense of you or a loved one’s life.

Courts Revisit Tough Question: Can Genes Be Patented?

by Leave a Comment

To laypeople, the idea of having a gene patented may sound impossible. However, an amendment to federal patent legislation could allow pharmaceutical and biotech companies to patent genes, a decision that would have significant consequences for a variety of industries, medical care providers, and patients.

New Amendment Could Change Legal Precedent

Legal precedent was established in 2013 when Myriad filed a patent for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. These genes are utilized in diagnostic tests for breast and ovarian cancer. The company argued that they had the right to patent these genes because they were the company to isolate them. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that human genes cannot be patented, since they are a product of nature.

This new bill, which was introduced in Congress in May of 2019, would allow companies to patent human genes and associations between diseases and genes.

What This Means for Researchers, Companies, and Patients

If this bill passes, it could seriously impact the pharmaceutical industry, as well as companies that specialize in biotech and medical research. A company that patents a gene would have full rights to any experimentation on that gene, as well as the development of diagnostic tests and treatment options. In some situations, perhaps this would be advantageous. Companies with a truly philanthropic interest in the treatment of specific diseases could potentially have more resources to dedicate to the isolation of genes and the subsequent development of testing and treatment options.

The more likely scenario, however, is far less palatable for consumers and biotech development as a whole. Large companies with extensive funding could essentially dominate the field by focusing exclusively on gene isolation and securing patents. Once they successfully patent various genes and connections with diseases, they would be able to conduct research on their own schedule and at their leisure. In the meantime, other companies—including companies that could possibly develop cutting-edge testing and treatment options—would be unable to do any research with the patented gene. This is disastrous for smaller biotech companies and research facilities. It’s likely that they’d be unable to isolate genes as quickly as much larger companies, which would significantly limit the type and amount of research they could do. Consequently, they’d have a difficult time hiring talented researchers who want to discover new treatment options. Larger pharmaceutical and biotech companies could quickly develop a monopoly in several diseases.

Perhaps the most disastrous implication of this legal decision would be the effect on patients. Patients with debilitating or even fatal diseases do not have extra time to wait for a patent-holding company to decide that their disease is profitable enough to research. By limiting who can study and experiment on specific genes, legislators could leave thousands of patients waiting for cures or treatment options that may not come or may come too late.

Opinions Across Various Industries

Lawyers representing professionals across many different industries have voiced their opposition to this measure. At least 169 different organizations representing medical professionals, patients, and researchers have come out in strong opposition to the bill. The ACLU is one organization that has expressed concern over this bill. Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU, said, “Congress should not upend years of settled law to grant corporations exclusive rights to examine our genes and hinder much-needed genetic research, testing and treatments for a range of diseases.”

Attorneys have outlined the potential fallout of this bill. They note that BRCA gene patents caused significant issues in the past, with Myriad’s monopoly on testing protocols leading to the shutdown of other labs that also conducted ovarian and breast cancer screenings. Myriad dramatically increased its testing prices when it held the patent, leading to serious issues for patients.

This bill could go one of several ways. It could pass if it gets the necessary votes or it could die on the legislative table if it doesn’t receive enough votes. If it passes, it’s likely that numerous advocacy groups and professionals organizations will fight it, possibly leading to another Supreme Court case.