Jury Blames Talcum Powder for Ovarian Cancer

Jury Blames Talcum Powder for Ovarian Cancer - No Evidence Needed!

I have written about talcum powder previously. Indeed, I have not only opined on the slippery substance, but I am also a regular consumer of the product. Talcum powder has become magic legal dust that brings forth zillions of dollars to those who have been attacked by the poisonous toxin.

Just last year, I informed readers of $55 million and $72 million judgments to cancer victims who used powder against the manufacturer Johnson & Johnson. Earlier this year a Missouri woman was awarded $110 in damages.

Recently, a jury in California, where the cost of everything is stratospheric, ordered J & J to pay damages to a victim of ovarian cancer. The jury clearly wanted to send the company and corporate America a monetary message that went beyond the pinprick judgements that were issued against J & J last year.

Readers at this point are invited to consider what would constitute reasonable damages if it were proven true that the product caused the cancer and the company knew of this risk and did not provide adequate warning to the public. Make your guess before reading on.

Here are some price comparisons to test your sanity

Private Gulfstream Jet $70 million

Penthouse in NYC’s Plaza Hotel $40 million

Alexander Hamilton Autograph $1,000

Bentley Automobile $230,000

100 meter Superyacht $275 million

California Jury Award $417 million

You may resume breathing now. Of course, the plaintiff’s attorneys were able to string a circuitous array of dots that connected talcum powder to cancer in front of a jury who was likely more sympathetic to a dying victim than to a megacorporation. But, sympathy is not evidence and being a successful company does not define negligence.

Few strands of GW's hair is a bargain at $22,800!

This mega-judgment is rendered beyond absurd when one accepts that there is no convincing and consistent scientific conclusion that talcum powder is the responsible agent. The studies have largely demonstrated an association, which are not designed to determine cause and effect.

What should product manufacturers do? Should every package include a boxed warning that the product can cause misery and death just to cover themselves? Perhaps, not. This would only give customers anxiety, pain and suffering. Guess what would happen next?

Comments

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so. The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals. In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist. Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings. Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape. Private equity (PE) firms have been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight. PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale. While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier. There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform. Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele. It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance. For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings? If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits? The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform. Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat. The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families. Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR). I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary. And it’s not a fair fight. You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine. I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient. You must think I am a magician or a savant. While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago. (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary

MD Whistleblower

Search This Blog