FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 361:1206-1211 September 17, 2009 Number 12 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

The New York Times heralded "A Win for Injured Patients,"¹ while the Wall Street Journal said that the U.S. Supreme Court was "Pre-empting Drug Innovation."² To the New York Times, the Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine was "wise and surprising."¹ To the Wall Street Journal, it was a "defeat for drug innovation and public health"²; the editorial expressed surprise because the Supreme Court had earlier ruled that Congress had preempted state civil lawsuits alleging device misbranding, and many persons thought that the Court had turned relentlessly pro-business and would therefore also rule that civil lawsuits alleging drug misbranding . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Facts in Wyeth

The Law of Preemption

"Tragic Facts"

Preemption after Wyeth

Source Information

From the Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.