Follow this blog:
RSS

A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney

By | December 30, 2009, 7:05 AM PST

At the same time the Bush Administration was successfully denying patients the right to sue makers of medical devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, it was destroying the same agency’s device approval process.

Given the known heart problems of then Vice President Dick Cheney (right), it means he could have been killed by a defibrillator that did not deserve approval and his family would have had no redress for their loss.

Researchers at UC San Francisco found that half of all FDA approvals for heart devices from January of 2000 to December of 2007 were based on a single study.

In 2008 alone such devices were implanted over 1.7 million times in the U.S. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A second study in the American Journal of Therapeutics, written by a team that includes a current FDA official, said the quality of pre-market clinical studies of such devices during the period varied widely, and that minorities and women were underrepresented in the trials that did take place.

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Riegel vs. Medtronic that patients damaged by such devices should have no right to sue for damages in state courts, that FDA approval pre-empted  such suits.

Then Vice President Cheney had a heart defibrillator implanted in 2001 but needed a procedure to control an irregular heartbeat in 2007 and again in 2008.

Advamed, the trade group representing device makers, had not issued a press release on the studies as this was written. But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal an official criticized the JAMA study, claiming its authors did not have access to all the data submitted, and claimed the agency spent 1,200 hours analyzing each device approval.

Under new FDA chair Margaret Hamburg, the Administration is preparing new guidelines for pre-approvals, including follow-ups on all patients in pre-market trials.

Hamburg had the head of the device division, Daniel Schultz, resign in August after experts told the President personally they felt pressure to approve devices they were unsure of.  Congress is now investigating.

But think about it a second. You corrupt the process by which approvals are granted while you’re successfully arguing in court that people harmed by those same approvals have no right to sue.

Love or hate President Bush, the man’s Administration had chutzpah.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Healthcare

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
27
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Dana...

You need to get over him.

I know Bush broke your heart, but you and every other lib needs to just stop it.

Your obsession is unhealthy.

You want to talk about chutzpah?

Our nation was attacked by a terrorist and our President waited 3 days to address the nation.
Posted by Hates Idiots
30th Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
I love right wing hacks
Nothing ever done before was real. Nothing ever done by a conservative is wrong. Everything done by a liberal is wrong, or not done by a liberal is wrong.

The President took three days to respond to a failed attack. Bush sat around and read a childrens' book after being told of a successful attack.

I know you don't think so, but there's a difference. A real attack demands immediate action. A failed attack demands investigation. This PResident investigated a failed attack.

But this has nothing to do with the issue here. Which is the destruction of rights, including the rights of hte Vice President, who suffered two arrythmia attacks while in office.

He couldn't sue for his bad defibrillator because that right had been pre-empted, and authority given to a completely corrupt process.

All we can do in response right now is to fix the process. What the court did in Medtronic is an evil the executive can't eradicate. Rights to a redress of griveances against private parties were systematically dismantled by insane legal theories.

What's sad is you don't read what I write. You see my name, think "ugly liberal," and immediately go into a defensive crouch, followed by an offensive, false attack.

Until that changes we don't make raal political process. Which may not be until after you have passed from the scene. Certainly it won't be until the people convince your party that their ideology no longer holds absolute sway.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
1st Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Pardon for interrupting bi-partisan quarrels. But have you ever
wondered that topics like this are beyond partidary fractions,
politics, or even ideology? It's just so much wrong that it only can be
perceived as an ethics issue, a clear violation of fundamental society
rules, an undermining of community (and even of himself).
This is, pardon the hyperbole, delayed suicide...
And if the people in your country are not able to see it, well we in
the rest of world are (still) worried...
Posted by thxmil138+zdnet@...
1st Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Fake concern is a joke.
Dana. Don't hide your naked hatred of Bush by pretending you wrote the column because you cared about Cheney.

Do I care about politicians padding their wallets on the dime of big companies by insulating them from lawsuits? Yes. But you could have easily written the post without bringing politics into it. Polititians on both sides of the isle infulenced the changes made.

RIGHT WING HACKS.

I'm a Democrat if it's any of your business. I hate to break the news to you, but someone forgot to tell you that politicians are usually corrupt and often stupid. I have spent 40 years busting on Presidents for the stupid things they have done and President Obama is no different from Nixon or the rest of them.

I can admit when the sitting President screws up. I hold him or someday her accountable for their mistakes regardless of party. Clinton and Bush made plenty of mistakes over the past 16 years and both heard it from me. Right now Obama is in the hot seat.

You just can't admit Obama makes mistakes so all of his failures become Bush's fault.
Posted by Hates Idiots
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
``President Obama is no different from Nixon or the rest of them.'' Every other president is different from Nixon. Bush was worse in many ways.

''Our nation was attacked by a terrorist and our President waited 3 days to address the nation.'' The shoebomber was virtually identical. Bush waited 6 days and not a single conservative objected.

You are all dishonest or idiots or both.
Posted by jdavis5775@...
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
What nonsense!
So what if an approval is based on "a single study"? The issue is, was the study sufficient to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the device.
And Bush did not decide the law, the U.S. Supreme Court did. And a damn fine thing that they did too, considering how corrupt many of our state courts are, especially in Louisiana and West Virginia, where liability cases are often based on the "need" of the plaintiffs, rather than the guilt of the defendants.
I'm sure you don't see it that way - which makes for exactly the sort of corrupt juries that award these ridiculous claims which the rest of us must pay, one way or another.
Posted by macmcf
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Funny as it sounds I've fought Dana on his politics before. It's far too bad that he can't see the further political divide that he injects into actual problems make people less likely to become engaged to work together or compromise on anything.
Posted by partman1969@...
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
A different take
Remove the political comments from the article and what is left is a policy that prevents people from suing over defective medical devices because the FDA ok'd the devices. The result is if you have a defective medical device implanted and that device has FDA approval, then the Supreme court ruled that you can not sue for damages in a state court.

The article also quotes researchers who state that half of the medical devices were approved by the FDA on the basis of a single study. This indicates that the FDA approval is not as solid as expected.

The question that should be asked is "who should be responsible for defective medical devices?" If the FDA is rubber stamping approval, then the FDA should be held liable for that. No company should be permitted to KNOWINGLY selling defective medical devices and getting a free ride on liability.
Posted by sboverie
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Hates Idiots Bush waited a full week to comment on the "shoe bomber".
Duh!
Posted by mikey683
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Dear Dana, in studying our government we learn that there are 3 branches in the Federal Government, the Executive which would be the President and his administration, the Judicial which includes the Supreme Court and the Legislative which includes the Congress. Each Branch of government has the power and the responsibility to provide a check and balance of power to prevent corruption.
Federal Regulating groups such as the FDA are staffed by career Federal Employees which often serve through multiple administrations. Yes the heads of these groups are often selected by the current President but I don?t think you can reasonably claim that they are part of a Presidents administration.
Posted by watersaver@...
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
What I meant to convey is that since the Supreme Court is the branch of the Federal government that handed down the decision then you can hardly blame the Bush Administration unless you think that he totally controlled that branch of the government as well.
Posted by watersaver@...
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
What do Cheney's additional procedures have to do with anything?
How do "minority" hearts differ?
Your 3rd sentence/paragraph says "...single study." but the 5th
sentence/paragraph says "...studies...". So which is correct?
"Killed Cheney" how?

Your Blog belies SmartPlanet's self-description at the bottom of the
page. (ref: About SmartPlanet)
Posted by michaelstn@...
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
How true
Thats what you call a no brainer!
Posted by Altotus
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Not chutzpah
No no one will lose sleep about dead citizens in the Bush admin.so chutzpah is not appropriate. Kinda more like Hannibal Lector time- mmmm tastes good less filing.
Posted by Altotus
4th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Outside of the politics, the FDA ought to be sued for approving the products that were faulty if the supreme court refuses to reconsider their decision. One study is not enough and some minorities groups/women sometimes have the potential to have different responses to medicine and I assume medical devices as well. I don't quote any studies but I have heard of them. I don't care for Chaney but I guess the irony here more the point. Just goess to show how integrety and honesty in priciples will trump all as many have been hurt by the apparent lack of these, in the approval and court systems in place at the time. I hope they change this flawed law.
Posted by jpn1234
5th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
jpn1234
Politics aside if that is possible on this fourm, It is rediculas that the FDA has been slack, with rush apporvals and in adaquate studies of drugs and now devices. How many died due to colesteral medication that was eventually recalled and who many died due to faulty approval on this device? The FDA ought to be sued if the Supreme Court deems they as infalible as they do; to with hold liability on their judgement on what is safe and what isn't. Idealy The Supreme Court ought reverse the ruling. Otherwise, the FDA must be able to be be sued in these cases. The irony of it is Cheneuy's vulnerability in this. I don't like him personally. But the issue here is a flawd law and more importantly the lack of integrety, and ethics. I'm not going to question Dana's motive is bringing up politics in this as it was partly political, Once branch is supposed to check the other branches of government as I understand the pholosophy of Democracy to be. However
on one last note, I won't quote studies here - but I have heard or read some that document differences in some "minority" group and womanas to how they react to medication so that might hold true with medical devices such as implants. All in all it is long over due this issue be addressed and perhaps if this information was made move public during the last Presidential cabinates running it might have spurred chnge more quickly, which is a sad outlook on entities envolved past and some present. AT least some one fineally picked up the ball.
Posted by jpn1234
5th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
macmcf
It's extremely disingenuous to argue separation of powers when the doctrine was pushed by Bush appointees, and given to Bush-appointed judges.

The doctrine of preemption hurts a lot of people, by denying them a right to get a day in court supposedly because an agency has given its approval to the device.

The same Administration that pushed this doctrine then systematically stripped the agency of its actual power to do its job.

The fact that the VP of this Administration became a victim of the doctrine and failed regulation is mere irony. I don't think it was offered as anything but that.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
5th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
jpn1234
You can't sue the FDA, as a unit of the government, for damages caused by the FDA's regulatory actions, or inactions.

Makes the whole plot pretty foolproof. Except for a change in politics, which has now occurred. The reason this came out as it did is because the current Administration is re-examining the policy.

Cold comfort for those already injured.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
5th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Republicans
I doubt many Americans will ever get over Bush and Cheney, given the damage they did to the country -- its economy, its standing in the world, its freedom, and its great cities.

I know you would like to insist we do that. By demanding that we "get over" Bush and Cheney, you can blame everything they did on Obama and the Democrats.

But people are not stupid. And people have memories. You demand that we "never forget" 9-11. We'll never forget who was President that day, what he did in that care center when he heard, and about the warning he was given a month before.

We won't forget any of it, and we won't stop reminding you of your complicity in it. The sins of the last decade won't wash off your hands no matter how hard you rub.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
6th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
You are blind Dana.....
to the damage politicians on both sides of the isle have caused.

You can't even discuss a tech issue without bring politics into the headline.

By failing to admit the problems of the past 8 years were as much the fault of Republicans and Democrats in Congress as they were Bush's fault shows how little you understand our government and the people in it.

Senate Democrats like Kerry sat on Senate committees and saw the same CIA reports and all the same inteligence data as Bush. With the same information in hand as Bush did they fully supported going into Iraq to prevent the spread of WMD's. Congress voted to support the action based on recomendations from it's members who saw the top secret briefings. Why does the blame fall completely on Bush?

Senate and House Democrats also sat in on the same briefings as Bush on the infamous wire tapping scandal. They approved it happening yet they fail to take any blame.

And while on that matter. President Obama expanded the use of illegal wiretapping in February 2009 while appealing the court ruling made in January 2009 that said it was illegal to do it. Justice Department lawyers have held up the appeal process for 11 months while the illegal wire tapping continues to this day. Why is he not held accountable?

Senate and House Republicans and Democrats during the 1990's rolled back banking laws created after the Great Depression designed to prevent the meltdown that happened in 2008/09. Senator Dodd of Connecticut is not running for reelection because he is getting killed in the polls at home for his part in the financial meltdown. He was a "friend of Angelo" and his voters have made it clear he is not going to get reelected. Why do you and so many others only blame Bush?

I could go on and on for days with examples.

The President cannot change laws by himself. You would know that if you knew how our government worked. Democrats and Republican lawmakers in both the Senate and the House had to give Bush the majority votes needed to change or create laws you are mad about. Why are they not held accountable?

That is why I was raised to distrust all politicians and you would be smart to start thinking that way before you lose the right to do it.

Blind faith in one party, one belief system, has destroyed nations and threw the world into war. Ask Germany and Japan.
Posted by Hates Idiots
6th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
A plague on both your houses?
So when Republicans are the majority and bad things are done by the government it's the Democrats' fault, because they were there. And when things you don't like happen with Democrats in power it's all the Democrats' fault?

As to "it's the politicians," those are our representatives. We sent them there. We voted for them. We are responsible for their actions. Calling something "the fault of the politicians" is just an attempt by people to wash their hands of their own responsibility.

It won't wash. A Republican Congress changed the banking laws. A Republican President went to war against the wrong country, bankrupted us with tax cuts and war costs we could not bear, and let a major American city drown.

Politics is about choices. We have an obligation as citizens to make them, and not to go "they're all crooks" and walk away. That's destructive to the system. It's not what the Founders risked their lives for.

The case against the Republican Party in the matter of the financial meltdown, of the Great Recession, of the destruction of regulatory authority in all areas, or Iraq and New Orleans, is proven.

Only a rank partisan can deny it.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
6th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Dana you should amaze all those who read your posts. Bush had intelligence like: something was going to happen in the near future. Obongo and his goons had information from several sources and including the terrorists father that his son should be suspect for a possible terrorist attack. The terrorism on Bush's watch was an extreme eye opening for all of America to wake up and pay closer attention even if the terrorists only used box cutters. Obongo's failures allowed plastic explosives again (Bush's shoebomber) to gain flight in American airlines. If Americans really feel safe under the current administration allowing him to board with explosives and warnings before such an attempt please reelect your man. I can at least say this he probably has already done at least a little more against terrorism than either Carter or Clinton if you consider this beneficial at all. Oh and thank God For the foiled attempt which for Obongo was just pure luck.
Posted by partman1969@...
8th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Oh and I consider the Department for Homeland Security a redundancy in governmet assets we already have the FBI and CIA. If any administration could just make those two operate the way they should this Bush created mistake (Homeland Security) and the current dummy (Napolitano) running it would not be necessary. Is it possible that maybe you Dana and maybe the rest of those reading this might ever deem it necessary to try a third party. Your CHANGE administration seems only to be a pollar opposite to the disadvantages of those of the Republican party.
Posted by partman1969@...
8th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
I think Bush UN Hemde D??d?g? ?yi Oldu S?per Oldu

Sohbet
Sohbet Et
mynet sohbet
mynet
Chat
Chat Yap
vidyo
kiralik bobcat
Posted by tahsin29
20th Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Good grief!
Everybody is just sooOOOooo right(eous). Nobody is ever wrong. We're all a bunch of frustrated poli-sci geniuses. (Gag!)

How about this thought, Dana: A President is not king (or shouldn't be in this country). FDR may have been for all practical purposes, and some others have tried to be, but the President can only lead. He has to count on an enormous number of other folks to follow that lead, and follow it correctly. If they don't, though, it's hardly his fault. Because he's not king. Besides, nearly all of those people will have already been in place when he took office, and roughly half of them will have voted for the other guy, and roughly half of those will be inclined to turn their opposition into passive-aggressive behaviour.

We are, as the comments above show, a politically diverse, even factious nation. And, while some have acquired a better vocabulary than others, not many seem to have made much progress toward synthesis (the ability to get to 4 from 2 and 2).

I'd like to call upon all the experts to start seeing what I think are some of the more obvious differences between us, namely that our political groups are talking different languages.

Democrats/Liberals/Socialists/Communists try to paint the lines on the playing field so to arrange everyone in order of generosity, kindness, tolerance, friendliness... i.e. We are; they aren't.

Republicans/Conservatives orient those lines along morality, efficacy, and results. i.e. We are; they aren't.

That's why it's perceived as understandable for a Dem to cheat on his wife, but not for a Republican. (HYPOCRITE!)

That's also why it's considered desirable for a Republican to be wealthy, but 'suspicious' for a Democrat to be a 'Limousine Liberal'.

Why should this matter? Because your view, Dana, is that Bush was what you thought a President should be: Omnipotent.

But he wasn't.

And shouldn't have been.

God help the nation whose (mostly liberal) zealots make someone like Obama omnipotent.

Oh, wait, that's already happened. Many times. Most recently in Iran and Venezuela. But most notably in 1936 Germany.
Posted by Gaius_Maximus
31st Jan 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
I agree that the FDA is a weakened body, and that if one is to take the practical view that businesses primary concern is to make money then your "policing" of companies needs to be very good. Alternatively you could make the penalties for providing dangerous goods hinge on jailing the decision-makers. Fining the company is no hardship for executives who have probably already left by retirment or job moves.

It seems to me that the two party system is as divisive and inappropriate in the US as in the UK. Until the party system is refurbished I think the US will be for an ever lasting loop of blaming the other guy. Surely a bigger selection of "guys/gals" will allow people a chance to vote for good candidates. A pipedream ... I know.
Posted by dieseltaylor
1st Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: A Bush-era scandal that could have killed Cheney
Thank you for the information your provide.
sesli chat
SesliSohbet
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliChat siteleri
sesli
sesli chat
Posted by OzgurDunya
4th May 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!