I don't think so. Any medical professional who thinks that any painkiller has a low risk of addiction should have his licence revoked. Medical history has shown plenty of times that this is not how things work, regardless of what pharmaceutical companies advertise. Once the doctor has made the patient aware of this risk and takes the appropriate measures to control prescription, he has done his bit. The rest is personal responsibility. Of course, health services are dismal at managing chronic pain, and addicts will find ways of feeding their addiction. But it is easy to abdicate responsibility. Let's sue Macdonald's (again) for our obesity problems, while we're at it.
So these guys are being punished because people misused their product, From reading just this small article it seems no one has been misled or lied to.
Absolutely. It is a bit like suing a car manufacturer which claimed its car has a higher safety rating for pedestrians than other cars, because people are mounting bull-bars on it, driving it drunk and killing pedestrians in the process.
To be fair, I doubt it's the first time something like this has happened, we do need to examine and regulate big pharma companies more. Also, are they being punished for lying about the addiction qualities (which may be fair) or the fact that it can be processed into someting addictive (which would be totally unfair)? The article is unclear on this I think.
Even if it is the former they are accused of, you have to be pretty stupid to take advertising at face value. As I said, medical history is full of examples of chemicals that are supposed to be "non-addictive" and later turn out to be very addictive, which are then replaced by the next "non-addictive" substance which eventually turns out to be addictive... for instance: barbituates --> benzodiazepines --> zopiclone. It is the pharmacological effect or function of a chemical that makes it addictive, not some magic chemical formula. Painkillers make you feel better (or at least, less crap). Ergo, painkillers can be addictive. End of story.
Probation and Community Service? In China they'd have been executed. This isn't the same as suing McDonalds for your obesity; a patient should expect his prescribed drugs to have no harmful side-effects - we don't all have a deep medical knowledge. All his doctor knows for sure is that the drug has passed government testing; he can weigh the sales spiel against patient feedback, if he cares. But dishing out Medicaid is more production line than personal health care.
Lay people may not have deep medical knowledge, but their doctor certainly should. As I said before: any doctor could (and should) have informed the patient accurately. I'm but a humble psychologist, and I know that all painkillers by their very nature carry a risk of addiction. It has nothing to do with their chemical composition; it has to do with how effective they are at making you feel better (or at least, stop making you feel crap), and how quickly. Anything that is marketed as an effective painkiller therefore has an intrinsic risk of addiction.
I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, you can (rightly) say that the drug companies have the responability to not lie about such serious matters. Marketing bull**** is expected in this day and age, but this sort of thing is perhaps too serious for pharmaceutical companies to be allowed to lie about such things and get away with mere community service. OTOH, I'm tired of the abdication of responibility crap. That women who accused the drug company of killing her son is stupid, her son was the reason her son died not the companies who developed the drugs he took. Above all he made the choice to take the drugs that would kill him. There is an element of responsibility that lies with the companies though. Even the doctors involved share some of the blame. I suppose it's a fairly equal thing in a situation like that. The addict is to blame for being a pathetic human, the doctor is to blame for enabling their patient to get addicted to a substance and abuse it, and the drug company is to blame for lying about the addictiveness potenatial of their drugs simply because they know they can afford any fines and avoid any jailtime that'll occur if anyone calls them out on it.
Just because everyone else does it, and they've done it for years, doesn't mean you should condone it. I'd rather more organisations were challenged than less. Yeah, I am too. But I don't want to swing too far in the opposite direction. I think responsibility should be shared, and rather than haggling over sentences, I'd rather steps were taken to prevent the situation occuring. Addicts will still get addicted. To something. But equally, if a drug is potentially addictive, its use should be more carefully monitored. CJM
I'm pretty sure that the intent of the prosecution was to penalize the executives for ignorance rather than deaths--there is a fine difference. They are fined for willfully declining to duly inform the public of risks, not for in/directly causing addiction or medical fatalities.
In the end, whether a medication is prescribed is a clinical decision. Big Pharma may endorse their product, but any decent doctor looks at the clinical trial results (e.g. Cochrane database) and draws his own conclusions based on his medical experience.
Yes but there are plenty of shitty doctors Nexxo, and plenty who despite the best intentions just don't stay up with all the latest clinical reviews as much as they should. The more misinformation out there the harder it is for the non-super doctors to do the best for their patients. It is comforting to know you hold such a high standard for your colleagues and yourself though
