Pharmasutical Company Loses lawsuit, Ordered to Pay $63 Million - Polidicks

[quote]US healthcare company Johnson & Johnson has been told to pay a teenager and her parents $US63 million ($A61.23 million) after she suffered a life-threatening drug reaction and lost most of her skin when she took a children's pain reliever nearly a decade ago. ... Samantha was seven when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family lawyer Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 per cent of her skin and was blinded, he said. Read more: [url]http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/johnson-johnson-ordered-to-pay-63-million-to-samantha-reckis/story-fnda1bsz-1226578139974#ixzz2KsYsbJg0[/url][/quote] While it's a tragic thing to happen, from my understanding it's ridiculously rare for this to happen. Seems a bit ridiculous to be sued because the company didn't think of every remote possibility and list it on the box (how would you even do that?).

[quote]Lost most of her skin | lost 90 per cent of her skin[/quote] Sounds absolutely terrifying.

[quote] lost 90 per cent of her skin and was blinded[/quote] Jesus Christ how horrifying.

[quote] she suffered a life-threatening drug reaction and lost most of her skin when she took a children's pain reliever nearly a decade ago...... lost 90 per cent of her skin and was blinded[/quote] How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39585964]How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.[/QUOTE] Remember, weed causes you to be stoopid. This just causes extreme pain, loss of skin and the inability to see, clearly a superior alternative

Pharma[U]ceu[/U]ticals.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39585964]How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.[/QUOTE] Donnnnn't start this.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39585964]How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.[/QUOTE] Ibuprofen, after paracetamol and aspirin is like the most common non-prescription painkiller there is. This happening is extremely rare and has been know to happen with many other things that are taken for granted as harmless. It's hardly "nasty pharmaceuticals."

[QUOTE=download;39586050]Ibuprofen, after paracetamol and aspirin is like the most common non-prescription painkiller there is. This happening is extremely rare and has been know to happen with many other things that are taken for granted as harmless. It's hardly "nasty pharmaceuticals."[/QUOTE] No, Im talking about the ones that are pushed by the drug companies that are still highly untested and most of the side effects are unknown but still make it into the drug stores as prescription meds.

63 million to one person is kind of over the top, IMO.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39586154]No, Im talking about the ones that are pushed by the drug companies that are still highly untested and most of the side effects are unknown but still make it into the drug stores as prescription meds.[/QUOTE] You realise every drug that hits the shelves need to go through many layers of trials? It doesn't go straight from the lab to the shelves

Sorry but this is a stupid lawsuit. It's near impossible to know every single possible side effect that could possibly occur with each person in the world having their own unique set of DNA and how their own body responds to the drug is unforeseen. Ibuprofen is pretty much the most common anti-pain drug there is (I use it all the time), its been tested to hell and back and its pretty safe. This is just absurd.

[QUOTE=download;39586321]You realise every drug that hits the shelves need to go through many layers of trials? It doesn't go straight from the lab to the shelves[/QUOTE] I know that but some drugs of the drugs are poorly tested. Why do you think you have so many drug recalls in the U.S.? It takes a decade to fully research a drug and know the fullest extent of the long and short term effects of it.

Ibuprofen isn't exactly a brand new product, so if they tested it even more not much would have changed.

This is bullshit. As tragic as her situation is, it is not the company's fault that she suffered a severe allergic reaction to the drug, especially considering how widely used ibuprofen is.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39585964]How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.[/QUOTE] funfact: drugs may or may not have varying effects depending on the user

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39586692]I know that but some drugs of the drugs are poorly tested. Why do you think you have so many drug recalls in the U.S.? It takes a decade to fully research a drug and know the fullest extent of the long and short term effects of it.[/QUOTE] Pretty much ever drug recalled is many decades after it was introduced. If we waited that long to see long term side effects many people would die. Also, damn, I just realised how badly I misspelled pharmaceuticals in that title

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;39586430]Sorry but this is a stupid lawsuit. It's near impossible to know every single possible side effect that could possibly occur with each person in the world having their own unique set of DNA and how their own body responds to the drug is unforeseen. Ibuprofen is pretty much the most common anti-pain drug there is (I use it all the time), its been tested to hell and back and its pretty safe. This is just absurd.[/QUOTE] let's look at it this way- you gave your kid motrin because they were feeling kind of sick and the entire outside of their body died because of it. Who covers the medical bill? Clearly you didn't accept that as a potential side-effect, it wasn't listed nor warned of so this was entirely out of the family's blame. And this happened a decade ago, and they're only getting the money now? Imagine all the hardships they must have been through to keep the child alive and help continue raising them. And for what? Why is the price 63m? It isn't necessarily JUST to be reimbursement for medical expenses, it's reparation for wrecking a human being up three ways to sunday. They shouldn't get away with it because it wasn't an intended effect. I've always been a bit iffy about people getting punished for "involuntary manslaughter" (like if someone dives in front of your car and you get sent to jail for murder because you didn't prevent their death), but this is a pharmaceutical company and the person has lived with what I can only imagine has been a long, painful, debilitating condition for a [i]decade[/i]. 63m isn't that much for a pharma co to dish out.

[QUOTE]Samantha was seven when she was given Motrin brand ibuprofen, family lawyer Brad Henry said. She suffered a rare side effect known as toxic epidermal necrolysis and lost 90 per cent of her skin and was blinded, he said.[/quote] Capitalism

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39586880]Capitalism[/QUOTE] The hell are you talking about. Ibuprofen is an incredibly prolific drug. These take billions of dollars to test and get approved for use, one person having a severe issue out of millions upon millions of people needing it for their daily lives is not the company cutting corners to make more money. This severe of a problem isn't likely going to be fixes by the drug, it would be a separate drug. According to wikipedia the average diagnosis rate for this condition is less than one ten thousandths of a percent per year. That's not lets-take-the-drug-off-the-market numbers. Edit: And apparently it's to almost any drug, not only this one, almost like an allergy if I understand it right.

[QUOTE=download;39585677]While it's a tragic thing to happen, from my understanding it's ridiculously rare for this to happen. Seems a bit ridiculous to be sued because the company didn't think of every remote possibility and list it on the box (how would you even do that?).[/QUOTE] It's the companies fault they make billions every year and it's up to them to be as safe as possible.

Does anyone know how such drugs cause upper layer of skin to fall off? What is mechanism of this syndrome? Surely such drugs can't harm skin cells by themselves, do they actually somehow make brain to command epidermis to fall off?

[QUOTE=Reader;39587098]Does anyone know how such drugs cause upper layer of skin to fall off? What is mechanism of this syndrome? Surely such drugs can't harm skin cells by themselves, do they actually somehow make brain to command epidermis to fall off?[/QUOTE] It's most likely a reaction in her body that caused it although it's still not her fault.

[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;39587141]It's most likely a reaction in her body that caused it although it's still not her fault.[/QUOTE] I want to learn how this disease works, I don't suspect it not being drug's doing.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39586880]Capitalism[/QUOTE] Yes because if this occurred in any other kind of economy then the drug would have gifted her with an ear for quantum whispers and let her see gamma rays as a side effect.

[QUOTE=Reader;39587098]Does anyone know how such drugs cause upper layer of skin to fall off? What is mechanism of this syndrome? Surely such drugs can't harm skin cells by themselves, do they actually somehow make brain to command epidermis to fall off?[/QUOTE] Perhaps it's auto-immune causing the body to kill off the connective tissue keeping the upper layers connected.

[QUOTE=Reader;39587159]I want to learn how this disease works, I don't suspect it being not drug's doing.[/QUOTE] looking at wikipedia, it's caused by reactions to certain drugs. Given it was named 'necrolysis' I thought it'd be more severe like that one russian drug (street, not pharma) that was causing people to necrotize, but it actually seems to be a number of things

[QUOTE=Lalelalala;39586318]63 million to one person is kind of over the top, IMO.[/QUOTE] people generally don't have the luxury of single-payer healthcare in the US her family is going to pour down the millions that they've gotten to help maintain her health my mother had gotten a compound fracture in her foot and the medical bill sent to us was in the thousands (about ten grand from what i recall) - something we can't afford, manily covered by an insurance company we use, but the single-payer model seems much more painless i also don't have dental insurance, and combine that with apathy from a variety of reasons, from neglect to depression, my teeth aren't in the greatest condition right now i've also had a wisdom tooth sitting in the back row for years, which has partially dislocated my teeth, and once in a blue moon, it will start to hurt like hell

[QUOTE=Reader;39587159]I want to learn how this disease works, I don't suspect it not being drug's doing.[/QUOTE] When you are allergic to something, the allergen causes you body to attack itself, in this case the skin. So yes, it is by the drugs doing, but will only affect the tiny minority allergic to Ibuprofen in this way

Out of curiosity, I looked up some pictures of toxic epidermal necrolysis. I really wish I hadn't. It would definitely screw someone up.