What can I say? I miss her
Here is an article that many of you won’t like. It was written by a blogger who happens to be
an attorney heavily involved in tort cases concerning the medical profession. The specifics in this case concern lawsuits
directed at Johnson & Johnson over talc and its relationship to ovarian
cancer. He seems to be somewhat
skeptical of the way some courts have handled these suits. His opinion seems to be that the role of the
court should be that of “gatekeeper”; that is, they should determine which
scientific evidence carries the presumption of validity – is based on
experiments conforming to the accepted standards of the discipline. This would seem to be a tall order for an elderly
lawyer turned judge who flunked biology 101, but must be oerformed to prevent the jury (ALL of whom flunked biology 101) from tearing the defending party (often
a hate worthy big corporation) into little pieces unjustifiably. My take on this:
1)
Stop using talc, right now. I suspect that it contributes to ovarian
cancer, but I’m not sure – so don’t take the chance.
2)
If a company has reasonably good evidence that
its product is harmful it should stop selling it and run an honest experiment
to find out if and why.
3)
If a company knows that its product is harmful
but does nothing about it, it should be sued out of existence and its CEO and
Board tossed in jail.
4)
If a company sells a product (e.g., asbestos) in
good faith, it should not be driven out of existence if, at a later date, harm
is detected. See Johns Manville as a
case study.
5)
If I had it to do over again I would, of course,
study cancer biology and go into research.
However, I would be sorely tempted to acquire both an M.D and a
J.D. Imagine trying a medical case with
yourself as an expert witness! Such
people exist; all are rich and only die when they crash their Aston Martins
into a bridge.
The latest on J&J and the courts
ReplyDeletehttps://www.drugwatch.com/2016/10/31/jj-70m-talc-ovarian-cancer-loss/
More on talc and OVCA. Just because a company is big doesn't mean it's evil. Necessarily.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-talc-cancer-20170707-story.html
More on talc. This is getting tedious.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/22/545314093/-417-million-awarded-in-suit-linking-johnson-johnson-baby-powder-to-cancer
I suspect that what is reported here will continue to occur for a long time. Synopsis: Woman uses talc. Woman contracts ovarian cancer. Woman sues Johnson & Johnson for a sum that seems enormous to us, but in reality is mere pocket change to J&J. Jury sides with sick woman, against “evil corporation”, despite totally inconclusive evidence of talc/OVCA cause-and-effect. Judge tosses verdict for one of many reasons, but mainly to get out of the firing line. Lawyers get rich, nobody else benefits. Crappy state of affairs
ReplyDeletehttp://wsau.com/news/articles/2018/jun/30/missouri-appeals-court-tosses-55-million-jj-talc-powder-verdict/