L.A. jury hits Johnson & Johnson with $417-million verdict over cancer link to its talc – LA Times

In a very highly cited article, the LA Times reports that a terminally ill woman was awarded $417 million by a jury that found Johnson & Johnson liable for failing to warn her and other customers about the risks of its talcum products.

Source: L.A. jury hits Johnson & Johnson with $417-million verdict over cancer link to its talc – LA Times

The article highlights a 1982 study showing that women who used talc on their genitals were at a 92% increased risk for ovarian cancer – J&J it seems chose not to put a warning label on the product as recommended by the lead researcher. Critically, it argues that the jury panel found there was a connection between her ovarian cancer and the baby powder.

With thousands of other similar claims pending, J&J immediately announced that they were appealing.

J&J is an American multinational supplying medical devices, pharmaceutical and consumer packaged goods.

The story is now being widely picked up by the world’s media.

Since the financial crash of 2008, the value of J&J stock has doubled. It will be interesting to see how financial analysts rate J&J’s chances against the pending litigation.

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

People who think punitive measures help drug addicts haven’t seen what I have | Alex Wodak | Opinion | The Guardian

Here’s an excellent op-ed on the politics of drug addiction, by Alex Wodak, published in the Guardian. The author, Dr Alex Wodak is president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and he argues had the Australian government consulted experts before unveiling their plan to drug test welfare recipients, they would have been advised to drop it, pronto.

Source: People who think punitive measures help drug addicts haven’t seen what I have | Alex Wodak | Opinion | The Guardian

This article brings into stark contrast conservative and liberal politics related to drug addiction. Both sides have their arguments and experts.

Conservative, tax-paying voters in many Western countries are tired of paying into welfare schemes that support the scroungers and cheats of the welfare system. People who take drugs regularly or who are addicted to alcohol are not properly motivated to get a job and pay their way in society.

Let me ask an open question:

Should governments in the US, the UK and Canada follow Australia’s example and drug test welfare recipients?

Thoughts?