That’s the legal side.
What does science say? “Most
research finds no link or a weak one between ovarian cancer and using baby
powder for feminine hygiene, a practice generations of American mothers have
passed on to their daughters. Most major health groups have declared talc
harmless.” The rest of the article gives
more information about the research and the trials. Here is another conflict between science and
the legal process, but that should come as no surprise in light of jury awards given
years ago for silicon breast implants when the implants were later found to be
safe.
It is very easy to understand how a jury could ignore
science and award millions of dollars to a woman with ovarian cancer. They do it out of sympathy, and they do it
because they can. To do otherwise seems
cold and heartless. It’s not their money
and the company has plenty of money.
What’s a few million dollars in the grand scheme of things when it can
bring comfort?
What person would stand by and see a toddler fall and skin
her knee and not immediately run over to pick her up, dust her off and give her
some comfort? It is the human thing to
do.
There are several similarities between the one who helps the
fallen toddler and the juries who award large sums. It costs them nothing. It gives comfort to the afflicted, although it
does nothing to cure the cancer or heal the skinned knee. And it makes the rescuers feel good about the
part they played in giving that comfort.
There are, however a few key differences. When you comfort the toddler it truly costs
you nothing, and other toddlers don’t look at the one who fell and line up to
also fall down to get sympathy. (Some may
independently discover that falling down is an easy way to get attention and
some of them probably grow up to be trial lawyers.)
Also, when a toddler gets sympathy, the costs of that
sympathy are not spread to the rest of society.
When a jury finds for the plaintiff in this case, not only does the
company (or insurance company) pay, but every other company in that industry is
put on notice. They are at risk of
losing a large judgment for one of their products that has been on the market
for years with no ill affects. They
don’t spend the money now, but must keep some in reserve to protect against such
a contingency.
Likewise, all insurance companies, seeing that evidence
means nothing to some juries, must save for similar outcomes. The companies making personal products slowly
raise their prices to adjust for this, and the insurance companies raise their
rates to cover the increased risk. This
sympathetic redistribution, which is really what it is, ends up costing
everyone in society. What’s worse is
that this activity adds no value. It
does not add to the GDP. It does nothing
to increase the standard of living for anyone except the few women who win in
court (and their lawyers – Remember trial lawyers are not paid for justice;
they are only paid for winning.)
In the end what can Johnson & Johnson do (besides spend
a lot more time and money appealing each decision)? What lesson could they learn? Should they get everyone who buys baby powder to sign a hold-harmless agreement? Why are they more at fault than the
“generations of American mothers” referred to in the article? They made a product considered safe for years
and suddenly they are on the hook for $127 million; and if the ratios hold true
and half the next 2000 win similar amounts, it could be $127 billion! It’s “jackpot justice” and the cost of all
the “lottery tickets” falls on the rest of us, including the people who served on
those juries!
So how can baby powder harm you? It harms you in the same way other wasteful
legal actions harm you. It takes money out of deep pockets to compensate
“victims,” but the costs ultimately come back to each of us, with nothing to
show for it but richer lawyers and juries who, in some misguided way,
temporarily feel satisfied that they did something to help.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment