Literature DB >> 17652236

Tobacco industry lawyers as "disease vectors".

Sara D Guardino1, Richard A Daynard.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite their obligation to do so, tobacco companies often failed to conduct product safety research or, when research was conducted, failed to disseminate the results to the medical community and to the public. The tobacco company lawyers' role in these actions was investigated with a focus on their involvement in company scientific research, claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product cover, document concealment, and litigation tactics.
METHODS: Searches of previously secret internal tobacco industry documents located at Tobacco Documents Online. Additional searches included court transcripts, legal cases and articles obtained through Westlaw, PubMed, and the internet.
RESULTS: Tobacco company lawyers have been involved in activities having little or nothing to do with the practice of law, including gauging and attempting to influence company scientists' beliefs, vetting in-house scientific research, and instructing in-house scientists not to publish potentially damaging results. Additionally, company lawyers have taken steps to manufacture attorney-client privilege and work-product cover to assist their clients in protecting sensitive documents from disclosure, have been involved in the concealment of such documents, and have employed litigation tactics that have largely prevented successful lawsuits against their client companies.
CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco related diseases have proliferated partly because of tobacco company lawyers. Their tactics have impeded the flow of information about the dangers of smoking to the public and the medical community. Additionally, their extravagantly aggressive litigation tactics have pushed many plaintiffs into dropping their cases before trial, thus reducing the opportunities for changes to be made to company policy in favour of public health. Stricter professional oversight is needed to ensure that this trend does not continue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17652236      PMCID: PMC2598535          DOI: 10.1136/tc.2006.018390

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  6 in total

Review 1.  The new public health litigation.

Authors:  W E Parmet; R A Daynard
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 21.981

Review 2.  Science for hire: a tobacco industry strategy to influence public opinion on secondhand smoke.

Authors:  Monique E Muggli; Richard D Hurt; D Douglas Blanke
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 4.244

Review 3.  Tick-borne disease.

Authors:  Robert L Bratton; Ralph Corey
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  2005-06-15       Impact factor: 3.292

4.  Lawyer control of internal scientific research to protect against products liability lawsuits. The Brown and Williamson documents.

Authors:  P Hanauer; J Slade; D E Barnes; L Bero; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-07-19       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Lawyer control of the tobacco industry's external research program. The Brown and Williamson documents.

Authors:  L Bero; D E Barnes; P Hanauer; J Slade; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-07-19       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  The shredding of BAT's defence: McCabe v British American Tobacco Australia.

Authors:  J Liberman
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 7.552

  6 in total
  12 in total

1.  Corporate image and public health: an analysis of the Philip Morris, Kraft, and Nestlé websites.

Authors:  Elizabeth Smith
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012-03-16

2.  Corporation-induced diseases, upstream epidemiologic surveillance, and urban health.

Authors:  René I Jahiel
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.671

3.  Do we believe the tobacco industry lied to us? Association with smoking behavior in a military population.

Authors:  Robert C Klesges; Deborah A Sherrill-Mittleman; Margaret Debon; G Wayne Talcott; Robert J Vanecek
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2009-06-15

Review 4.  Evidence Regarding the Impact of Conflicts of Interest on Environmental and Occupational Health Research.

Authors:  Ellen M Wells
Journal:  Curr Environ Health Rep       Date:  2017-06

Review 5.  A systematic review of store audit methods for assessing tobacco marketing and products at the point of sale.

Authors:  Joseph G L Lee; Lisa Henriksen; Allison E Myers; Amanda L Dauphinee; Kurt M Ribisl
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Philip Morris's health information web site appears responsible but undermines public health.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Smith; Ruth E Malone
Journal:  Public Health Nurs       Date:  2008 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.462

7.  Waking a sleeping giant: the tobacco industry's response to the polonium-210 issue.

Authors:  Monique E Muggli; Jon O Ebbert; Channing Robertson; Richard D Hurt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-07-16       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Analysis of British American Tobacco's questionable use of privilege and protected document claims at the Guildford Depository.

Authors:  Eric LeGresley; Kelley Lee
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  "Working the system"--British American tobacco's influence on the European union treaty and its implications for policy: an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents.

Authors:  Katherine E Smith; Gary Fooks; Jeff Collin; Heide Weishaar; Sema Mandal; Anna B Gilmore
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  "A good personal scientific relationship": Philip Morris scientists and the Chulabhorn Research Institute, Bangkok.

Authors:  Ross Mackenzie; Jeff Collin
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-12-23       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.