A spectacularly bad idea.

In today's Wall Street Journal online edition, a spectacularly bad idea is put forward of "medical courts."

This is just the latest in the "how can we fix juries to avoid Vioxx verdicts" editorial and commentary flooding the press and airwaves since last weeks bell ringing verdict in the first Vioxx trial down in Texas. As usual, the commentators focus on the ignorance of the jury, their desire to ignore facts, and to punish Merck.

And as usual not one of these commentators actually sat in the court room, read the transcripts, interviewed the jurors or in any way acquainted themselves with the facts of this trial. Jury's just don't hand out quarter billion dollar verdicts and SOMETHING Merck said, did or had presented in that trial convinced those folks that there was serious harm and that a serious verdict needed to be returned. Very little mention that the case will be appealed. Very little mention it will be statutorily reduced to 25 million under Texas law. Almost no mention of the fact that Merck put on a miserably weak defense.

No, lets alter the jury system. Lets protect the drug companies that knowingly put out dangerous products, yeah, that's the solution. The bottom line is that any time a major company is hit with a verdict you can expect the usual suspects to trot out the tired arguments about how it will destroy the legal system, bankrupt companies and reduce innovation in medical science. Its important that trial lawyers counter that "noise" with facts of their own, while we continue to battle in court.