I'm mooching today

We're just about to start final exams, so I have no time for the fun stuff. Hence, today I'm going to mooch off the latest Sebastian Mallaby column in the WaPo. This guy consistently provides some of the best op-ed writing in any major American newspaper -- in my opinion. Today he's discussing the Vioxx lawsuits. While I'm not as "into" the tort reform movement as some others, some of the trial outcomes (and especially the statements after the trails) drive me bonkers. While this is not a typical Mallaby column and not one of his best overall, he still turns a nice phrase:

Sticking up for a painkiller that boosts the risk of heart attack is an unconventional approach to winning votes. But the Vioxx litigation -- 11,500 lawsuits and counting -- is so crazy and repulsive that it makes even drug companies look virtuous. It glorifies prejudice above science as much as Bush's stance on global warming; it wastes money as grotesquely as Bush's tolerance of pork.

While the column starts with some (potentially?) tongue-in-cheek advice to the Pres., Mallaby later moves to the general insanity of trials involving scientific evidence:

Far from taking Merck's medicine for the 18 months identified [in the study that got Vioxx pulled] as dangerous, the smoker [and previous heart attack sufferer] had taken it for no more than one month, making the claimed association with his heart attack all the more implausible.

Ordinary mortals would be embarrassed to demand millions of dollars on this basis. But the way the trial bar tells it, defiance of science is a triumph rather than a scandal. "This is the first case in the country where short-term usage has been found by a jury to be causatory of heart attacks," exulted the plaintiff's attorney, skirting the question of how 12 laymen can be said to "find" medical causation. "We hope this will go a long way in dispelling this 18-month science fiction myth," the mythmaker went on.

Though it's easy to identify the "problem", I'm not sure what the solution is. I'm certainly not in favor of a "loser pay" system to reduce frivolous suits as I realize that would make it impossible for David to sue Goliath. Nor do I think Mallaby's solutions are realistic, but something's got to be done. I hate to invoke the specter of John Galt, but sometimes I think it might be appropriate.