Potential $109 million Motrin settlement

[Exterous]

A teenager who lost most of her skin and her vision in a horrifying adverse reaction to Children’s Motrin has on Wednesday won $109million from the drug’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson.

Samantha Reckis, who was only seven years old when she took the children’s ibuprofen to combat a fever, suffered a rare but potentially fatal side effect that caused her to go blind and 90 percent of her skin to fall off.

In total, the Plymouth, Massachusetts Superior Court jury ruled that Ms Reckis and her parents should be awarded at total of $109million by Johnson & Johnson and its subsidy McNeil-PPC Inc, including interest.

Holy hell - I had no idea that was even a possible reaction.

The condition, while rare, is a severe allergic reaction to medications such as barbiturates, penicillins, and sulphonamides

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278431/Samantha-Reckis-Teenager-wins-109MILLION-lawsuit-severe-allergic-reaction-Childrens-Motrin.html

Is it normal for all of these drugs to warn of rare potential allergic reactions? I don't have a kid but even as an adult I am always on the lookout for a potential reaction when I take a new medicine

 

[TheVrolok]

Wow, certainly a tragic reaction for the child. However, I don't see how J&J is in any way culpable. Some people unfortunately have very rare adverse outcomes to common/safe treatments - while this is tragic, I don't see how there is anyone to blame. As much as I want this child helped, I don't think it's J&J's 109 million dollar (or at all) responsibility to do so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Wow, certainly a tragic reaction for the child. However, I don't see how J&J is in any way culpable. Some people unfortunately have very rare adverse outcomes to common/safe treatments - while this is tragic, I don't see how there is anyone to blame. As much as I want this child helped, I don't think it's J&J's 109 million dollar (or at all) responsibility to do so.

If you think she should be helped whose responsibility is it to do so if not the people producing and profiting from what did this to her?

 

[nehalem256]

While a sad story I don't see how J&J is responsible. What could they have done to prevent this situation?

 

[TheVrolok]

If you think she should be helped whose responsibility is it to do so if not the people producing and profiting from what did this to her?

Her parents, family, charity? I'm curious, how did J&J "do this to her?" Simply because they produce a product that is largely safe, but she, unfortunately, had a severe reaction to? Should peanut producers be responsible for anyone maimed/killed by peanuts before they are aware of the allergy?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

J&J aren't peanut farmers.

 

[TheVrolok]

J&J aren't peanut farmers.

...

 

[nehalem256]

J&J aren't peanut farmers.

And?

Peanuts are well known cause of allergies. How can we let these murders profit off the deaths of others?

It seems to me that if anything peanut farmers are worse offenders.

 

[Oldgamer]

Yea, the reaction she most likely had was "steven's Johnson" syndrome, and there are many people who have that type of reactions to many different types of medications.

This is more common than people realize, and is very important that people be aware it is a potential side affect of many drugs. Even antibiotics can cause this in some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens–Johnson_syndrome

 

[TheVrolok]

Yea, the reaction she most likely had was "steven's Johnson" syndrome, and there are many people who have that type of reactions to many different types of medications.

This is more common than people realize, and is very important that people be aware it is a potential side affect of many drugs. Even antibiotics can cause this in some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens–Johnson_syndrome

90% (>30%) skin detachment puts it into TEN, a more severe form of SJS.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

...

Peanut farmers don't have the business model of downplaying side effects and skirting safety because it costs them less to just deal with any resulting litigation that big pharma does.

 

[TheVrolok]

Peanut farmers don't have the business model of downplaying side effects and skirting safety because it costs them less to just deal with any resulting litigation that big pharma does.

While I would give you more credence if we were discussing a variety of other drugs, we're talking about children's motrin here. Big Pharma issues not found.

 

[nehalem256]

Peanut farmers don't have the business model of downplaying side effects and skirting safety because it costs them less to just deal with any resulting litigation that big pharma does.

I don't know that I would really classify an allergic reaction as a "side effect". People can be allergic to many things, but that does not mean you should be able to sue companies that make things you are allergic to.

What do you think J&J should have reasonably done to prevent this tragedy from occurring?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

While I would give you more credence if we were discussing a variety of other drugs, we're talking about children's motrin here. Big Pharma issues not found.

Find them here:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/01/business/la-fi-fda-recall-tylenol-20101001

 

[TheVrolok]

Find them here:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/01/business/la-fi-fda-recall-tylenol-20101001

Of course I abhor operating with sub standard practices, but again, this article, while damning for J&J's operations, has nothing to do with the unfortunate incident the occurred to this young girl. In fact, from the article itself:

The FDA so far has not linked a recalled product directly to any serious illness or death.

How does this article relate to J&J paying 109 million for a reaction they had no causal relationship with?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

J&J aren't peanut farmers.

No they aren't. All medications have potential side effects that cannot be foreseen in all cases, therefore none should be allowed on the market until this happens.

Thanks for that.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Of course I abhor operating with sub standard practices, but again, this article, while damning for J&J's operations, has nothing to do with the unfortunate incident the occurred to this young girl. In fact, from the article itself:



How does this article relate to J&J paying 109 million for a reaction they had no causal relationship with?

It wasn't intended to, it was just in response to your assertion that somehow children's Motrin was immune from big Pharma underhandedness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course I abhor operating with sub standard practices, but again, this article, while damning for J&J's operations, has nothing to do with the unfortunate incident the occurred to this young girl. In fact, from the article itself:



How does this article relate to J&J paying 109 million for a reaction they had no causal relationship with?

It has nothing to do with this case. He's arguing for the elimination of medications, although he'll say otherwise.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It wasn't intended to, it was just in response to your assertion that somehow children's Motrin was immune from big Pharma underhandedness.

That's not what he said. "big pharma underhandness" has nothing to do with this issue at all. Who brought up that irrelevancy up again?

 

[TheVrolok]

It wasn't intended to, it was just in response to your assertion that somehow children's Motrin was immune from big Pharma underhandedness.

At not point did I assert that anything was immune from "big Pharma underhandedness." I was simply implying that children's motrin is a very safe drug and likely this story has nothing to do with "downplay the side affects of" and "skirting safety issues." As written in the article you linked, J&J has had what seems to be some bad operating procedures, but has not caused any known serious illness or death. It doesn't seem like you have much of a point here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yea, the reaction she most likely had was "steven's Johnson" syndrome, and there are many people who have that type of reactions to many different types of medications.

This is more common than people realize, and is very important that people be aware it is a potential side affect of many drugs. Even antibiotics can cause this in some people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens–Johnson_syndrome

SJS incidence is at most about 6 per million population in the US and ibuprofen is responsible for at most a few percent of that. This is extremely rare and why the GOVERNMENT (caps for J&J haters) approved it's use in children. Tragic? Sure. So is being hit by a meteor in the head.

I wonder if Big Pharma haters will demand we sue the government for what is their fault. Nope.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At not point did I assert that anything was immune from "big Pharma underhandedness." I was simply implying that children's motrin is a very safe drug and likely this story has nothing to do with "downplay the side affects of" and "skirting safety issues." As written in the article you linked, J&J has had what seems to be some bad operating procedures, but has not caused any known serious illness or death. It doesn't seem like you have much of a point here.

As I said in my prior post it is the GOVERNMENT which approved ibuprofen for children, and reasonably so because the incidence of this tragic event is less than being fried by lightning. Why isn't he demanding those he supports be held accountable for their judgement?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

At not point did I assert that anything was immune from "big Pharma underhandedness." I was simply implying that children's motrin is a very safe drug and likely this story has nothing to do with "downplay the side affects of" and "skirting safety issues." As written in the article you linked, J&J has had what seems to be some bad operating procedures, but has not caused any known serious illness or death. It doesn't seem like you have much of a point here.

My point is J&J has a history of "big pharma issues" that extend to even children's Motrin and even if those "issues" didn't directly lead to this incident they deserve no sympathy from having the damages caused by one of their products fall on them as opposed to this girl's family, charity, government, me, or you.

And how sweet, it looks like Haya wants to be my valentine.

 

[nehalem256]

My point is J&J has a history of "big pharma issues" that extend to even children's Motrin and even if those "issues" didn't directly lead to this incident they deserve no sympathy from having the damages caused by one of their products fall on them as opposed to this girl's family, charity, government, me, or you.

And how sweet, it looks like Haya wants to be my valentine.

So basically you are opposing justice and just want to punish J&J because you hate them.

 

[zsdersw]

I wonder if Big Pharma haters

Is Big Pharma beyond reproach? Are you saying there are no valid criticisms of it?