Until these two studies were published, there was not a single piece of literature suggesting that finasteride could cause sexual dysfunction persisting after cessation of the medication. The Irwig paper expressly says as much in one of the early paragraphs. Cite me something that says otherwise and we'll talk.

Well, not quite. It varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but at least in my country I believe the standard is a negligent, not intentional, failure to disclose the risk.* So, it's only necessary to show that the pharmaceutical company should have known, not that they did. I would be surprised if that is not the case here. Merck has reportedly been tipped off numerous times by patients and doctors over the past 10 years and has not acted. Moreover, the drug has shipped in Europe with a persistent sexual side effects warning since 2008 due to pressure from regulators there. How ignorant could Merck be then? Not to mention Merck's history: they essentially covered up the side effects of Vioxx only a few years ago.

I should add that I fully agree that a drug company that quite innocently puts a drug on the market having taken all prudent measures to ensure all relevant risks are disclosed should not be held responsible for issues that weren't foreseeable at the time. But this situation is unlikely to be one of those times.

Sorry, but how on earth does that make any sense? Temporary impotence which goes away as soon as you stop taking the drug is not even remotely similar to losing sexual function for the rest of your life. I am inclined to think the men involved in this debacle agree.

*There is also a statutory cause of action under consumer protection legislation that sets an even lower standard for the plaintiff, but I can't recall the elements off the top of my head.

Simply wrong. They provide a loss of potency while on the medication - which, in the case of prostate cancer, is usually years. And yes, the loss of potency worsens after several months. But it does not persist after treatment. Here is a quote from Merck's page for Propecia: "A small number of men had sexual side effects, with each occurring in less than 2% of men. These include less desire for sex, difficulty in achieving an erection, and a decrease in the amount of semen. These side effects went away in men who stopped taking PROPECIA because of them." That information has turned out to be wrong. Are you seriously telling me they shouldn't be liable for giving prospective patients wrong information about side effects? If so, why not?

Antiandrogens are only supposed to have that effect temporarily, while you're taking them. The significance of these new studies is that they show Propecia is causing permanent impotence - it persists even after you stop the drug. That is not a known behaviour of antiandrogens, and was not disclosed to patients considering Propecia.

Right, and in this case the patients weren't warned of the risk of irreversible impotence, only reversible impotence that was supposed to go away after they stopped taking the drug. They weren't in any position to weigh up the real risks and benefits, and have every right to sue the pharmaceutical company for that.

Propecia is an antiandrogen, and has always been known to cause sexual dysfunction while the user was on the drug. What's significant about these new studies is that they show that sexual dysfunction can persist AFTER you stop taking Propecia. That contradicts what Merck has always said - their product guidance warns of sexual side effects but expressly states that they always stop after ceasing the drug - and the advice that doctors give to patients considering taking Propecia. That's why there's a lawsuit - no one was ever warned that these sexual side effects might be permanent.

In fact, it remains a mystery how the drug could have this effect: its half life is only a few days, and it really should be ceasing any effect within that time. At least one doctor (Dr Alan Jacobs, a neuroendocrinologist in NYC) is speculating that Propecia is inducing permanent changes to the expression of genes governing the androgen system. IANAD so I express no view on that.

If you want to learn more about this issue, go to propeciahelp.com. There are people there who have been suffering from post-Propecia symptoms - not just sexual dysfunction, but other symptoms associated with low testosterone like cognitive impairment, fatigue, etc - for upwards of 10 years after stopping Propecia. If that's not worth a big payout from a pharma company that expressly told that that all side effects would cease after taking the medication, I'm not sure what is.

"our parliament is a virtual dictatorship"

If by "dictatorship" you mean elected body, then yes.

"crossing the floor on the basis of principle is almost entirely unheard of and considered to be little better than treason"

The last time a member of the ruling Coalition -- and not the opposition parties, which vote against Coalition legislation frequently -- crossed the floor was about a year ago, but internal dissent scuppered some immigration laws this year. Anyway, since when was the measure of a democracy the lack of discipline of the ruling party? What's undemocratic about an elected ruling party voting for its own legislation? On the contrary, if, after being elected with a majority in both houses, the government were unable to make new laws, that would be a failure of democracy.

"with none of the individual rights in our Constitution"

Our constitution may suck, but Australia is still a free country. Freedom House rated us a 1 1, meaning we have an excellent record on both civil liberties and political rights.

Come to Australia. Our GDP per capita is higher than the major European countries', and our Human Development Index is third in the world -- behind only Iceland and Norway.