Vioxx and Tort Reform

The recent removal of Vioxx from the market serves as a substantial reminder why tort reform must be defeated. Though conservatives often trumpet high medical malpractice insurance as a reason to cap damage awards, the real reason is to protect corporations from lawsuits. (Conservatives also like taking away income from a traditional progressive group: public protection attorneys.) The upcoming months will reveal whether Merck should have pulled Vioxx from shelves earlier. The liability that may ensue from their failure to do so could reach millions and millions of dollars.

Progressives need to remind the public that tort reform would mean that companies like Merck might keep dangerous products available for purchase even after they know their customers are dying. Companies that knowingly continue to sell dangerous products must be dissuaded from doing so. Consumers cannot rely on corporations to protect us; the threat of lawsuits must exist to keep us safer.

Thus, tort reform would make us less safe. We cannot rely on corporations to protect us.

Finally, in the future, we will consider whether "tort reform" is the proper terminology to discuss the conservative plan. Instead, progressives must frame the issue as one of corporate protectionism.