Consider 5.4
Can a pharmaceutical firm bear liability for complying with the directions of the FDA regarding warning labels? That was the case in Reckis v Johnson & Johnson (Mass. 2015), where a Massachusetts court awarded the plaintiff $63 million in damages following a suit alleging the defendant had failed to warn consumers adequately regarding the side effects of Children’s Motrin: the risk of developing toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). However, the defendant appealed asserting that the FDA prohibited McNeil – a drug manufacturer under J&J – from including any information regarding TEN as a side effect of the drug. In this case, the court should not allow the defendant’s appeal on the grounds that the FDA’s past cannot indicate how the court would rule o proposed changes. Generally, the firm’s decision to continue production and sale of the drug was against the provisions of Tort Law, which according to the Legal Information Institute (n.d.) involved omitting information that gave rise to injury or harm. One would argue that if the regulators did not think a warning was necessary, then companies need not be held liable for failing to warn consumers about that risk. However, what most fail to comprehend is that compliance rules differ with states. Even though pharmaceutical firms need to comply with the FDA’s regulations, it does not mean that a product label is sufficient grounds for product liability.
Ethical Issues
- J. Simpson’s murder trial and acquittal raise an essential question regarding whether or not it is moral to profit from crime and a trial. Ethical issues of convicts profiting from their crimes have been at the core of a legion high-profile cases. A considerable percentage of victims’ rights groups – while referring to the “Son of Sam” law – would argue that profits made from the sale of murder cases and trials need to the victims and not the criminals. Contrary, opponents would say that this assertion goes against the 1st Amendment, in that it restricts a person’s freedom of speech based on their content. According to the U.S. Constitution, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” (CITE). In this case, it might be legally right to allow criminals to profit from their crimes, even after sentencing; this is, however, ethically wrong as it implies that to an extent, we are all being victimized again, which is immoral.
Following Mr. Simpson’s acquittal, the case prosecutors and the defense team signed multi-million-dollar book contracts to share their trial experiences from both perspectives, thereby raising the question: were these contracts a form of making money from two people’s deaths? Yes. According to the American Bar Association (2017), from an ethical perspective, publishing such books implies violation of lawyer ethics, considering the information contained in these books would reveal confidential client information, which should not be disclosed to the public.
Even after Mr. Simpson’s was acquitted of the alleged charges, publishers and networks refused to publish his book, If I Did It, or air interviews with him, respectively. I would have done the same. Even though publishing such a book or airing such a conversation would present certain benefits, such as the re-evaluation of unfair or botched criminal trials, thereby allowing the public to think critically about the issue, the problem is that the limitations of publicizing such information outweigh the benefits (Leszkiewicz, 2016). For instance, sharing this information with the public could prioritize ratings over morality, exploit the victims’ suffering, lean towards preconceived narratives, and manipulate the masses’ opinion.