The family of a woman who lost her life to
ovarian cancer has been awarded 72 million dollars by Johnson & Johnson
after a Missouri jury decided her death was linked to talcum powder. The female
had stated that she regularly applied the powder to her genital area, and
believed it may have been linked to her ovarian cancer. This is a perfect
example of how science can be twisted to back false claims.
“Researchers from the Brigham and
Women's Hospital in Boston cited talcum powder has previously been linked
to ovarian cancer, namely in cases where the powder has been applied
to the genital region. In order to determine if genital talc is a
potential carcinogen, or substance capable of causing
cancer, researchers recruited 2,041 women with ovarian cancer and
2,100 without the illness
and asked them about their talcum powder use. They found that applying the
product to genitals, underwear, and sanitary napkins increased the
risk of developing ovarian cancer risk by a third ( Medical
Daily).”
One scientific paper pointed to the fact that applying the
product to the genital area increased the risk of developing ovarian cancer,
and a jury made a decision using this piece of evidence to award the family of
Jackie Fox 72 million dollars. I am in complete shock at the jury’s verdict. In
this day and age, one or two studies do not mean a thing. Sure the study may
lay some groundwork for scientists to further experiment on, but making such a
drastic decision based on one paper is ridiculous. The study needs to be
replicated using the same methods to eliminate increase the accuracy of the
prediction that was made. Without diving deeper into the conclusion that the
study makes, how can one be sure talcum really increases the risk of ovarian
cancer?
One medical
consultant who was actually hired by Johnson & Johnson stated that, ““anybody
who denies [the] risks” between “hygienic” talc use and ovarian cancer would be
publicly perceived in the same light as those who denied a link between smoking
cigarettes and cancer (
The Gaurdian).” I think this is a ridiculous statement to make. There are
probably thousands of studies linking cancer to cigarettes, which is why we are
so sure that there is a link between the two, but the same can not be said
about talcum and ovarian cancer. The jurors may have been convinced that this
was the right call, but I think I will need some further convincing
#publicsquare
3 comments:
I think that plaintiffs hired god attorneys to win this case. But, I understand why the jury was convinced on the money to be paid. The problem with medicine is that long term effects do not show up until way into the future, hence "long term." Therefore, that is a huge problem with being in the pharmaceutical business. However, I am quite sure that these companies understand what they are getting into. I think of it as weak research & development and evidence to prove that the plantiff's claim is absurd. Because J&J did not have enough research on their product to show the world that you cannot be sick off of it, they simply lost the case. Now, how J&J respond to it is the thing they have to keep in mind moving forward. I read recently that Erin Andrews, the sports reporter for ESPN, was awarded $55 million for a peephole in her hotel room. And, I believe that since she was not the average citizen in the United States, she received way more. Do you think that it was right of her to receive that much?
This type of thing happens all too often in most aspects of our society. People are all too quick to accept fact based on one research study or one person's word. I think that it is a problem with our society being uneducated in the scientific method as a whole, and how people should be taught more about the scientific process. Just because one article states something doesn't mean it's true. We can see a perfect example of this with the vaccine problem we're facing right now. One guy posts a bogus research article and now hordes of people who have heard about the study are claiming that they refuse to vaccinate in fear of their child getting autism. This type of thinking would never happen if people understood that they shouldn't take anything as fact simply because a scientific article says it is.
It is quite interesting that we place highly scientific matters in the hands of a jury, as you have outlined in this case study. The scientific process is one that establishes norms in our society. Unless the scientific process was explained to the jury in detail, and their understanding of how scientific studies work was at a proficient level, their judgement was likely skewed heavily based on how the lawyers in this case presented the facts. The jurors in this case have seemed to convinced themselves that this was the right call, but in actuality it is a hard sell.
Post a Comment