Prescribing Death

F. Hoffman La Roche, a Swiss pharmaceutical manufacturer, ignored early warnings that its popular sedative. Versed, could cause deadly side effects if it was sold in a highly concentrated form, according to internal company documents prepared by the company's attorneys. Despite warnings from its research division. La Roche sold the drug as a sedative and an anesthesic in the concentrated dosage form rather than the safer, less-concentrated form. Versed has been responsible for about 80 deaths and many more near fatalities.

The documents, written in the early 1980s and obtained by the Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizen Health Research Croup, indicate that the company's marketing division believed that the scientific problems were "loss significant" than the "commercial exploitation" of the drug.

The documents show the company hoped to use Versed � which La Roche now sells in the less concentrated form � to retain its market share of Valium, also a La Roche drug. Versed was put on the market at about the same time the Valium patent expired. Marketing Versed in the same form as Valium, however, required that it be administered through ampules in the more concentrated formula.

"It's quite clear [that Versed] is about four to six times as potent as Valium � although it was purported to be equal to Valium," says Dr. Robert M. Julien, an author of textbooks on anesthesiology and pharmacology in Portland, Oregon. "It's a drug that requires much closer monitoring than we ever had to use with Valium."

The company denies that the more concentrated form of Versed is unsafe and that it discounted safety concerns for marketing considerations. "When used according to labelling, this drug is extremely safe for its approved applications," says company spokesperson Carolyn R. Gywnn.

Purina's Pawn

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas � the Bush nominee for Supreme Court Justice � last year vacated a $10.4 million fine against the pet food giant Ralston Purina, a company founded by the grandfather of Senator John Danforth, R-Missouri, Thomas' longtime mentor and chief Senate sponsor.

Danforth, who owns at least S7.5 million in Ralston Purina stocks, recruited Thomas out of law school to work in the Missouri attorney general's office. Danforth then brought Thomas to Washington to work in his Senate office (after Thomas worked two years for Monsanto Co.) and was subsequently instrumental in securing Thomas' appointments to head the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Thomas authored the written opinion in the Ralston case. He overturned a lower court's finding that Ralston had deliberately produced deceptive advertisements for its "Puppy Chow" dog food. "The fine [of $10.4 million] was vacated � reduced to nothing," says Richard Leighton, a plaintiff's attorney in the case. "It is not in my judgement a close question," says Monroe Freedman, professor of ethics at Hofstra University. "He should have recused himself or at the very least put it on record." Federal law prohibits a judge from sitting on any case in which his or her "impartiality might be questioned."

A report by the New York-based watchdog group Supreme Court Watch called attenhon to Thomas' role in the Ralston case. The report argued that because of Danforth and Thomas' personal and professional relationship, "common sense suggests that Judge Thomas should have disqualified himself from any case of significance to Danforth or his family."

Thomas did not respond to press inquiries, but Danforth released a statement saying that he never discussed the case with Thomas and that a judge "cannot recuse himself any time a case involves a company in which somebody the judge knows might own stock."

Petro-Pricefixers

Texaco, Cheveron, Shell and Mobil agreed to pay $220 million to settle antitrust charges alleging that they fixed the price of Long Beach oil in the 1970s and 1980s, California officials announced in August 1991.

The four companies will turn over private pipelines worth $40 million to the state and pay $45 million each in cash. Arco previously settled the lawsuit by paying $22.5 million, as did Unocal by paying $49.8 million. Exxon is the sole remaining defendant in the price-fixing case.

The settlement stems from two lawsuits, filed by California and the City of Long Beach in 1975 and 1986, which allege that the seven oil companies conspired to fix prices at artificially low levels for crude oil that they purchased from the state from 1971-1977 and 1980-1985. The seven oil companies "fixed a posted price for crude oil that was much lower than the actual market price," says Edd Fong, a spokesperson for the California Lands Commission. Fong says the state has oil company momos "that suggest very strongly that they were engaged in a conspiracy."

The companies denied any conspiracy to fix prices, saying they agreed to the settlement to avoid the costs of litigation and taking the risk of placing complex issues before a jury.

� David Lapp