Potential $109 million Motrin settlement

[TheVrolok]

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.

Ok, so J&J isn't responsible for the damages, but they are responsible to pay for it? 😕

 

[TheVrolok]

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

Why are people taking things to extremes? HR simply said "Big Pharma" isn't responsible FOR THIS INCIDENT. They aren't, it's simple. There was no sinister plan behind this girl's tragic event. Of course that doesn't mean "Big Pharma" doesn't have it's failings. I have big issues with "Big Pharma" myself, but none of which relate (all that heavily, if at all) to this case.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Ok, so J&J isn't responsible for the damages, but they are responsible to pay for it? 😕

If you sell a product that causes injury or death as a side effect through proper intended use is it really some far out idea that you should hold some liability for that? It should be treated as any cost of doing business and fall on that business. There doesn't necessarily need to be sinister motive for liability. At least there shouldn't have to be.

 

[zsdersw]

Why are people taking things to extremes? HR simply said "Big Pharma" isn't responsible FOR THIS INCIDENT. They aren't, it's simple. There was no sinister plan behind this girl's tragic event. Of course that doesn't mean "Big Pharma" doesn't have it's failings. I have big issues with "Big Pharma" myself, but none of which relate (all that heavily, if at all) to this case.

I said it because HR has chimed in before when someone was critical of Big Pharma... even when they deserved it.

 

[nehalem256]

If you sell a product that causes injury or death as a side effect through proper intended use is it really some far out idea that you should hold some liability for that?

The girl was allergic. By your logic peanut farmers should be responsible for anyone who suffers because of a peanut allergy.

It should be treated as any cost of doing business and fall on that business. There doesn't necessarily need to be sinister motive for liability. At least there shouldn't have to be.

There is an inherent risk to ingesting any medication. I think you should at least be able to show there was some reasonable action that JNJ should have taken to prevent the incident.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

:wub:

I'm just amazed at the ignorance of this topic. Children's ibuprofen (and the trade name or company is completely irrelevant) wasn't always available for the "being eaten by a lion in NYC" chance of this happening. Considering that there is this concept of "risk vs. benefit", which the laws of the universe haven't seen fit to revoke, decisions have to be made. It was rightly determined that the benefit of fever reduction in children who didn't respond to acetaminophen (which is a real ugly bastard in itself) warranted it's release. So far more kids were saved from things like brain damage and death than were harmed. Lo and behold someone gets eaten by a lion, which the government allowed by ITS actions. What happens? The government holds someone else accountable, and so do you. Is there some responsibility on the part of J&J?

So yes, if there's a responsibility here it rests on the entity you most support above all. They should be squarely on the hook, but as you know they never hold themselves accountable, because they are the real power here.

The FDA controls labeling as well. It could have mandated "warning, this medication may cause a rare but potential fatal condition in children..." BTW, this is not SJS proper, but a related condition TEN. Anyway, where were they in all this? But still the judge isn't going to hold his institution accountable, I don't even think he can. So he passes the buck, but not just in damages, but decides that J&J aren't paupers, so he shoves it up their butt.

OK, you get revenge and you are happy. Now let's put this principle into action. If extremely rare but potentially dangerous side effects exist for all medication (they do, someone will have died somewhere from something) then let's be safe. Remove them all. Insulin is a big one. Diabetics just need to wait until there's a cure. Oh yeah, there is one. Death. Antibiotics? Damn, they are gone. Oh yeah, so maybe we can't do that. Instead let's sue them for insane amounts and just put them out of business. That's going to fix everything. After all it's not like the government knew anything about this stuff.

Even better. The wheel? How many accidents has that caused. Gone. People have died from falling out of their beds. Sealy BANNED!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

Yes there are plenty of good reasons, but I'm not defending them because there are wrongdoings in business practice. This tragic circumstance is the due to a rare immune response to a chemical given to treat a medical condition. That's the real issue, along with who us ultimately responsible for this even being allowed to happen. Really the issue is that the producers and governmental bodies in the topic at hand knew this was a possibility, but the good outweighed the potential problems. That's a case of life sucks. I'm sympathetic, heaven knows I am as drugs are my area of expertise and have seen a lot of bad things happen, but I know how and why things are, far better than the OP or the judge for that matter. Ignorance offends me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you sell a product that causes injury or death as a side effect through proper intended use is it really some far out idea that you should hold some liability for that? It should be treated as any cost of doing business and fall on that business. There doesn't necessarily need to be sinister motive for liability. At least there shouldn't have to be.

Where is the liability for the regulators? What if you achieve your "some liability" to the degree of this case which if applied as a universal standard would result in the end of medicine?

 

[TheVrolok]

If you sell a product that causes injury or death as a side effect through proper intended use is it really some far out idea that you should hold some liability for that? It should be treated as any cost of doing business and fall on that business. There doesn't necessarily need to be sinister motive for liability. At least there shouldn't have to be.

There is a warning on the box (if not, on the package insert, I don't have a box of children's motrin on me atm) for this incredibly rare outcome. That said, I would always recommend the usage of the product for appropriate indications regardless of my knowledge that this adverse affect is possible. Does that make me a sadist?

In medicine, nothing is 100%, there are rare and severe cases. Warnings were made, and the consumer decided (appropriately) that the benefit of using the product outweighed the risk. Unfortunately, this child became a statistic when that turned out to be untrue. None of this is J&J's fault. It is not analogous to electronics, tools, etc. etc. causing harm as medicines are far more individualized in their response. If you can only see this in black and white, I feel for you.

HR has raised a valid question that I don't believe you have responded to .. is the FDA also culpable? They have approved the drug. Now this is an OTC drug, but even so, what if her doctor had recommended she take it for her ailment? Should he/she be culpable as well?

 

[zsdersw]

I'm not at all saying Big Pharma is responsible or culpable for this incident, but I'm sick of people defending Big Pharma in general even when there are valid reasons to be critical of them.

 

[rudder]

J&J aren't peanut farmers.

But ibuprofen is a common drug. The parents could have picked any brand... even generics and the child would have had the same reaction. I could see a small settlement... but $60 million.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm not at all saying Big Pharma is responsible or culpable for this incident, but I'm sick of people defending Big Pharma in general even when there are valid reasons to be critical of them.

Indeed there are valid reasons to be critical, but context is important here and we're seeing an intentional conflation of issues. That's not your doing, but I'll defend the manufacturers in this instance.

Better, I have a potential solution to these sorts of things that will not only address the damages, but dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare far more than Obamacare.

It's a simple tax for a fund to cover adverse medical outcomes, combined with the elimination of malpractice suits for all but the most egregious cases.

How would that work? In this case the medication has a known adverse side effect which caused the problem. This judge should get stuck with being one who determines if the case is legit. If it is then coverage is provided as well as the necessary means for care. If we have a situation where someone cannot work, then a median income is provided for life. That's a whole lot less than 109 million and provides for the injured.

How does this bring down health care costs? Some will attempt to mislead you and say that malpractice isn't a big part of costs. They are either ignorant or deceptive. They have no idea how medicine is really practiced. What happens is that we have institutionalized defensive medicine. We have tests, then do them again, then have more. Look up the lifetime chances of being sued as a medical professional by specialty. It's a virtual certainty that you WILL be sued in some cases, and overwhelmingly so in many more. Why? Because of revenge and money. Ever see those ads "Have you ever taken X medication? If so call 1-800-MAK-MONY" (no the phone number is my invention, but the only part that is). As a result a practical consideration in many fields, and certainly in organizations which provide care is "if we are in a court, what did we not do that can be seized upon as grounds for a suit?"

Even when it's not done awares, it's still done because the system has evolved to compensate for that reality. It's "standards of practice".

Medical malpractice is an industry. "Big Pharma isn't a pauper" arguments go a long way.

So... take away the fear of doing what is reasonable and proper, and yes risk a small chance of bad things happening, and cut the costs dramatically by training with that reality in mind. Know what? That will never happen because everyone wants caviar on a cheetos budget. The trial lawyers association won't allow it and that mean's the Dems won't. Corporate haters won't. Republicans won't as it's a tax.

So we're going to pay through the nose, and fools will embrace government UHC AND the worst parts of our system and expect better things.

Tangential, but relevant to the larger picture.

So a tax to provide care, or status quo? Your thoughts?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

There is a warning on the box (if not, on the package insert, I don't have a box of children's motrin on me atm) for this incredibly rare outcome. That said, I would always recommend the usage of the product for appropriate indications regardless of my knowledge that this adverse affect is possible. Does that make me a sadist?

In medicine, nothing is 100%, there are rare and severe cases. Warnings were made, and the consumer decided (appropriately) that the benefit of using the product outweighed the risk. Unfortunately, this child became a statistic when that turned out to be untrue. None of this is J&J's fault. It is not analogous to electronics, tools, etc. etc. causing harm as medicines are far more individualized in their response. If you can only see this in black and white, I feel for you.

HR has raised a valid question that I don't believe you have responded to .. is the FDA also culpable? They have approved the drug. Now this is an OTC drug, but even so, what if her doctor had recommended she take it for her ailment? Should he/she be culpable as well?

I think only those profiting from the product should be financially culpable. Otherwise you have another privatize profits/socialize loss situation. I'm no fan of the FDA, but merely approving something doesn't absolve the manufacturer's responsibility. Ideally I think Pharma should at least fund a pool to cover medical costs when rare and extreme side effects from generally safe medications do occur. Because no, nothing is 100%, and I don't think if you're part of that unlucky fraction of a percent the response should be "too bad, see you in court if you survive." These incidents are "pollution" if you will, where should the burden fall to address it if not those who make it and profit from doing so?

 

[zsdersw]

Indeed there are valid reasons to be critical, but context is important here and we're seeing an intentional conflation of issues. That's not your doing, but I'll defend the manufacturers in this instance.

Better, I have a potential solution to these sorts of things that will not only address the damages, but dramatically reduce the cost of healthcare far more than Obamacare.

It's a simple tax for a fund to cover adverse medical outcomes, combined with the elimination of malpractice suits for all but the most egregious cases.

How would that work? In this case the medication has a known adverse side effect which caused the problem. This judge should get stuck with being one who determines if the case is legit. If it is then coverage is provided as well as the necessary means for care. If we have a situation where someone cannot work, then a median income is provided for life. That's a whole lot less than 109 million and provides for the injured.

How does this bring down health care costs? Some will attempt to mislead you and say that malpractice isn't a big part of costs. They are either ignorant or deceptive. They have no idea how medicine is really practiced. What happens is that we have institutionalized defensive medicine. We have tests, then do them again, then have more. Look up the lifetime chances of being sued as a medical professional by specialty. It's a virtual certainty that you WILL be sued in some cases, and overwhelmingly so in many more. Why? Because of revenge and money. Ever see those ads "Have you ever taken X medication? If so call 1-800-MAK-MONY" (no the phone number is my invention, but the only part that is). As a result a practical consideration in many fields, and certainly in organizations which provide care is "if we are in a court, what did we not do that can be seized upon as grounds for a suit?"

Even when it's not done awares, it's still done because the system has evolved to compensate for that reality. It's "standards of practice".

Medical malpractice is an industry. "Big Pharma isn't a pauper" arguments go a long way.

So... take away the fear of doing what is reasonable and proper, and yes risk a small chance of bad things happening, and cut the costs dramatically by training with that reality in mind. Know what? That will never happen because everyone wants caviar on a cheetos budget. The trial lawyers association won't allow it and that mean's the Dems won't. Corporate haters won't. Republicans won't as it's a tax.

So we're going to pay through the nose, and fools will embrace government UHC AND the worst parts of our system and expect better things.

Tangential, but relevant to the larger picture.

So a tax to provide care, or status quo? Your thoughts?

Tort reform, yes.. we need it.

A different way to fund health care, yes.. we need it.

Medicare Part D and inability to negotiate lower drug prices, no.. we need to eliminate it.

Drugs for nonsense "diseases" and "disorders", no.. we don't need them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Drugs for nonsense "diseases" and "disorders", no.. we don't need them.

What would those be?

 

[TheVrolok]

I think only those profiting from the product should be financially culpable. Otherwise you have another privatize profits/socialize loss situation. I'm no fan of the FDA, but merely approving something doesn't absolve the manufacturer's responsibility. Ideally I think Pharma should at least fund a pool to cover medical costs when rare and extreme side effects from generally safe medications do occur. Because no, nothing is 100%, and I don't think if you're part of that unlucky fraction of a percent the response should be "too bad, see you in court if you survive." These incidents are "pollution" if you will, where should the burden fall to address it if not those who make it and profit from doing so?

While I agree with parts of your ideology, it's just not possible for "the system" to be burdened with the costs of adverse outcomes the way you describe. It's just not remotely equipped to handle it. Should there be a paradigm shift? Possibly? Probably. It simply isn't realistic now (when this case is occurring).

 

[zsdersw]

What would those be?

ADD/ADHD, Restless leg, and Irritable bowel syndrome are three that come to mind.

 

[TheVrolok]

ADD/ADHD, Restless leg, and Irritable bowel syndrome are three that come to mind.

While I share some of your skepticism regarding ADD/ADHD, and keep speak much to RLS, IBS is hardly imaginary. The problem with medicine, is what we do not know eclipses what we do know handily. Simply because we can't explain it right now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think only those profiting from the product should be financially culpable. Otherwise you have another privatize profits/socialize loss situation. I'm no fan of the FDA, but merely approving something doesn't absolve the manufacturer's responsibility. Ideally I think Pharma should at least fund a pool to cover medical costs when rare and extreme side effects from generally safe medications do occur. Because no, nothing is 100%, and I don't think if you're part of that unlucky fraction of a percent the response should be "too bad, see you in court if you survive." These incidents are "pollution" if you will, where should the burden fall to address it if not those who make it and profit from doing so?

You absolve those responsible because they cause harm, but don't make a profit on it. Wow, that lets drunk drivers off the hook. They didn't profit from the accident, they just used poor judgement.

 

[nehalem256]

While I share some of your skepticism regarding ADD/ADHD, and keep speak much to RLS, IBS is hardly imaginary. The problem with medicine, is what we do not know eclipses what we do know handily. Simply because we can't explain it right now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://www.latisse.com/

LATISSE® is a prescription treatment for hypotrichosis (inadequate or not enough lashes) to grow eyelashes longer, fuller, darker

:awe:

 

[TheVrolok]

http://www.latisse.com/

LATISSE® is a prescription treatment for hypotrichosis (inadequate or not enough lashes) to grow eyelashes longer, fuller, darker

:awe:

I'm still not positive about how I feel in regard to these types of "issues." One of the faults of DTCA (which I seriously dislike) is, in my opinion, over medicalization. That said, just because you or I don't give a damned about thinner, small eye lashes, does that mean we have the right to discount others who do? I'm not so sure. It's certainly an interesting topic of discussion, though quite a bit off the OP's topic. (Sounds like something for our new forum 😉)

 

[zsdersw]

While I share some of your skepticism regarding ADD/ADHD, and keep speak much to RLS, IBS is hardly imaginary. The problem with medicine, is what we do not know eclipses what we do know handily. Simply because we can't explain it right now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The point is, do we need all kinds of drugs for these conditions?

It seems as if every ailment, no matter how mild or intermittent, is treated by doctors and Big Pharma as if there is or should be a pill or prescription to treat it. That's entirely bullshit.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

ADD/ADHD, Restless leg, and Irritable bowel syndrome are three that come to mind.

They all exist, but are most likely overdiagnosed. I can speak to the first one from first hand knowledge.

There's a lot going on under the radar. Doxycycline has been out for decades and was cheap. No more. Someone has managed to get control of the source of materials that drug companies use to make it and consequently they have an effective monopoly. We don't even know who "they" are, which sounds ridiculous, but is true regardless. Many generics have skyrocketed in costs and it continues, a drug at a time. The FDA was called in to Congress some time back and asked why this is happening. The answer was "We have no idea" and oddly enough that was the end of it.

Less spooky is advertising, which IMO is way out of hand, and of course lawyers who use IP to suppress everything they can. Look up Viagra and why it's not a generic.

 

[TheVrolok]

The point is, do we need all kinds of drugs for these conditions?

It seems as if every ailment, no matter how mild or intermittent, is treated by doctors and Big Pharma as if there is or should be a pill or prescription to treat it. That's entirely bullshit.

This is exactly what I addressed above. For many of these medicalized conditions I would be prone to agree with you, but does that make you and I right? Are we able to tell someone else that his or her concern is invalid? These are mostly rhetorical questions. I'd honestly love a whole thread to discuss this and see what people think, it's a topic that really interests me. I may start one in AT😀C at one point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The point is, do we need all kinds of drugs for these conditions?

It seems as if every ailment, no matter how mild or intermittent, is treated by doctors and Big Pharma as if there is or should be a pill or prescription to treat it. That's entirely bullshit.

If you are a doctor and you fail to use a treatment for a complaint, Gonad will be sure to advocate for a lawsuit, and that's only half kidding.

You have no idea. Unfortunately many don't want one.