jhetley: (Default)
jhetley ([personal profile] jhetley) wrote2005-08-19 05:06 pm

How much for that doggy (or life) in the window?

How much is a human life worth? According to a jury, at least $253 million, for a death that is questionably Vioxx-related.

Hey, folks, my sister nearly died from asprin. Oxygen in sufficient concentration can kill you. LIFE is fatal.

[identity profile] wcg.livejournal.com 2005-08-19 02:41 pm (UTC)(link)
Following up, it's $24M for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229M in punitive damages. Texas law will reduce the punitive damages sharply, but it seems that the jury was more concerned with punishing Merck than it was with anything else. They didn't award her anything at all for the loss of his earning power, though she may not have asked.

So it seems that the jury wasn't trying to assign a price to the value of the dead man's life. It was trying to hurt Merck for marketing a dangerous drug.

Can't say I'd have agreed. But I wasn't on the jury and I didn't see the evidence that was presented.

[identity profile] jhetley.livejournal.com 2005-08-19 03:37 pm (UTC)(link)
And we have a national hissy-fit on the cost of prescription medications....

[identity profile] nathelmi.livejournal.com 2005-08-19 04:59 pm (UTC)(link)
And on the cost of insurance, because everyone and their dog is trying to scam insurance any which way they can, it seems.

...Where can I sign up to become Amish?

[identity profile] jhetley.livejournal.com 2005-08-19 06:53 pm (UTC)(link)
I can put you in touch with some Mennonite cousins in Ontario. Don't know of any relatives in the Halifax area.

[identity profile] janetmiles.livejournal.com 2005-08-19 07:19 pm (UTC)(link)
On the other hand, if Merck *knew* the drug increased risks of X, Y, and Z and *hid those facts*, then they deserve, in my opinion, to get their knuckles rapped.

Hard.

People should be allowed -- nay, encouraged! -- to make their own risk/benefit calculations, but they shouldn't be asked to do so based on deliberate mis-, dis-, and non-information.

[identity profile] jhetley.livejournal.com 2005-08-20 09:36 am (UTC)(link)
Problem (as I see it) comes in defining "knew" and "risks." A lot of people assume that drugs _can_ be safe. I don't. If it affects your physiology or psychology at all, there's enough variation in human bodies that it can affect _somebody_ badly. Those bad effects may only show in statistical analysis once you have a million people using the drug....

This is even true of common foods. We have a school administration in Maine trying to enforce a peanut-free school building because of one student's violent allergy....