Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Late Night TV Lawyers
I'm sure you've seen them. The ads that come on TV trolling for someone, anyone, who has been harmed in any way by a drug or product. Right now I'm thinking about BadDrug. It's from a law firm or solicitor of some sort asking for clients who may have been harmed by Xarelto.
Now Xarelto is a blood thinning drug. It's used as a stroke-prevention treatment. A stroke is when a blood clot forms and moves to your brain. By keeping blood thinner it's less likely to coagulate and form a clot. Low dose aspirin is used but people who are at high risk for stroke need more. Warfarin, sold under the trade name Coumadin, has been used for years. Warfarin is the active ingredient in rat poison. The rats bleed out internally and die.
The problem with Warfarin is that it requires constant monitoring to make sure your blood is not too thick or too thin. That means frequent trips to the doctor to have blood drawn and analyzed. Xarelto does not require monitoring.
These hucksters are looking for people who may have experienced internal bleeding due to Xarelto. One of the main side effects of any blood thinner is that you bleed easier. Someone on a heavy-duty thinner like Xarelto could be in danger from a nose bleed or a cut finger because the blood doesn't clot. In other words, the drug is doing what it was intended to do.
That brings me to the point of this post. I'm all for holding people responsible if they cause harm but in this case I'm scratching my head. Let's see, you want to find the makers of Xarelto liable because the drug thinned your blood just like it was supposed to do? You took it voluntarily because your doctor suggested that taking it might lower the risk of having a stroke and either dying or being incapacitated for the rest of your life. Wake up. There are side effects to everything. You'll starve if you don't eat but if you do you might end up obese with a host of other troubles. Nothing comes free.
When I was in law school we studied inherently dangerous activities, like demolition and blasting. Our professor asked why knives don't carry a warning that they might cut you. The answer was, because that is what knives are supposed to do. We don't have to warn about a product doing what it was intended to do. Nearly 40 years later it appears we do have to warn people about a product doing what it was meant to do.
Now Xarelto is a blood thinning drug. It's used as a stroke-prevention treatment. A stroke is when a blood clot forms and moves to your brain. By keeping blood thinner it's less likely to coagulate and form a clot. Low dose aspirin is used but people who are at high risk for stroke need more. Warfarin, sold under the trade name Coumadin, has been used for years. Warfarin is the active ingredient in rat poison. The rats bleed out internally and die.
The problem with Warfarin is that it requires constant monitoring to make sure your blood is not too thick or too thin. That means frequent trips to the doctor to have blood drawn and analyzed. Xarelto does not require monitoring.
These hucksters are looking for people who may have experienced internal bleeding due to Xarelto. One of the main side effects of any blood thinner is that you bleed easier. Someone on a heavy-duty thinner like Xarelto could be in danger from a nose bleed or a cut finger because the blood doesn't clot. In other words, the drug is doing what it was intended to do.
That brings me to the point of this post. I'm all for holding people responsible if they cause harm but in this case I'm scratching my head. Let's see, you want to find the makers of Xarelto liable because the drug thinned your blood just like it was supposed to do? You took it voluntarily because your doctor suggested that taking it might lower the risk of having a stroke and either dying or being incapacitated for the rest of your life. Wake up. There are side effects to everything. You'll starve if you don't eat but if you do you might end up obese with a host of other troubles. Nothing comes free.
When I was in law school we studied inherently dangerous activities, like demolition and blasting. Our professor asked why knives don't carry a warning that they might cut you. The answer was, because that is what knives are supposed to do. We don't have to warn about a product doing what it was intended to do. Nearly 40 years later it appears we do have to warn people about a product doing what it was meant to do.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
Dershowitz v. Cassell?
Is a lawsuit brewing between Alan Dershowitz and Paul Cassell? Who, you ask? Who are these guys?
Alan Dershowitz is one of the United States' best known civil rights lawyers. A professor at Harvard Law School, Mr. Dershowitz may be best-known as the appellate attorney for O.J. Simpson; however he called that case not one of his most important. He also represented other celebrities, among them Patty Hearst and Harry Reams, who, in the 1970s, was accused of distribution of pornography for his movie Deep Throat. In 2006 Mr. Dershowitz began to represent Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who was accused of repeatedly soliciting sex from minors. The proceedings are tangled but the end result was a plea bargain by Epstein that resulted in his becoming a registered sex offender.
Paul Cassell is a former federal judge and professor of law at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law. Mr. Cassell is a graduate of Stanford University and served as an assistant United States Attorney after clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. In 1992 he joined the faculty at the University of Utah. In 2002 he was appointed as a federal judge in Utah. He resigned in 2007 to return to the University of Utah where he became an advocate for victims' rights.
Beginning in 2008 several civil suits were filed against Jeffrey Epstein alleging that he forced underage girls to have sex with him. Many of these were settled by Epstein's paying various sums of money. In December, 2014, Mr. Cassell and another attorney, Bradley J. Evans, filed a motion to join two other women, identified as Jane Does 3 and 4, in a lawsuit pending against Epstein in Florida. In that filing, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Evans allege that Mr. Dershowitz himself, along with Prince Andrew, engaged in sex with the underage girls. More details can be found here. Mr. Dershowitz responded by calling for Mr. Cassell's disbarment.
What we have is two heavyweights in the legal field squaring off against each other. This should be interesting. Stay tuned.
Alan Dershowitz is one of the United States' best known civil rights lawyers. A professor at Harvard Law School, Mr. Dershowitz may be best-known as the appellate attorney for O.J. Simpson; however he called that case not one of his most important. He also represented other celebrities, among them Patty Hearst and Harry Reams, who, in the 1970s, was accused of distribution of pornography for his movie Deep Throat. In 2006 Mr. Dershowitz began to represent Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire who was accused of repeatedly soliciting sex from minors. The proceedings are tangled but the end result was a plea bargain by Epstein that resulted in his becoming a registered sex offender.
Paul Cassell is a former federal judge and professor of law at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law. Mr. Cassell is a graduate of Stanford University and served as an assistant United States Attorney after clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger. In 1992 he joined the faculty at the University of Utah. In 2002 he was appointed as a federal judge in Utah. He resigned in 2007 to return to the University of Utah where he became an advocate for victims' rights.
Beginning in 2008 several civil suits were filed against Jeffrey Epstein alleging that he forced underage girls to have sex with him. Many of these were settled by Epstein's paying various sums of money. In December, 2014, Mr. Cassell and another attorney, Bradley J. Evans, filed a motion to join two other women, identified as Jane Does 3 and 4, in a lawsuit pending against Epstein in Florida. In that filing, Mr. Cassell and Mr. Evans allege that Mr. Dershowitz himself, along with Prince Andrew, engaged in sex with the underage girls. More details can be found here. Mr. Dershowitz responded by calling for Mr. Cassell's disbarment.
What we have is two heavyweights in the legal field squaring off against each other. This should be interesting. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)