OT Lawyers Why Do People Hate Them 3495

It peees me off that nobody is willing to take responsibility for their own misfortune anymore. If you get sick and take a pill which causes you more harm than the original illness, the atbreastude is that SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THAT!!! The "somebody" always, and I mean f***ing ALWAYS ends up being me (and YOU TOO, BTW). This in spite of the fact that the people who ALWAYS end up paying for the mess are almost never directly involved in any manner in the lawsuits.

The person primarily responsible for your own health is YOU. I've deliberately disobeyed direct orders of doctors to take certain medications because I (gasp) READ THE LABELS. In fact, I thoroughly read the literature (about the medications) that is provided by the pharmacy and I also 'google' any new medication the doctor wants me to take. I gather (and read and analyze) all the information readily available about a medication long before I even take a SINGLE dose of it. If we're talking about medication lawsuits in particular . . . In many cases, the side-effects that prompted the lawsuits were clearly spelled out in black and white RIGHT ON THE BOTTLE. If you aren't willing to accept a minor risk of rest, for example, DON'T TAKE THE MEDICINE WITH THAT *EXPECTED* SIDE-EFFECT. (Like, DUH!)

There is no such thing as a medicine that is 100% safe. All medicines have side-effects. Many of those side-effects are severe, up to and including rest. Yes, the odds of most people experiencing such severe side-effects are small. But when the risk (even SLIGHT risk) is written right on the bottle, don't take the medicine and then complain later that (surprise, surprise) the medicine did EXACTLY what the manufacturer said it MIGHT do!!!!

In some widely publicized cases recently, severe side-effects were found to be more common in certain medications. Because the SEVERE side-effects were *more common than anticipated* (note the 'anticipated' part, meaning that the risk was never said to be ZERO), the drugs were pulled from the market. But nobody taking the medications could say that they weren't warned IN ADVANCE that the danger existed. The people taking the medications buttumed the risk, even if the risk was greater than they knew it was at the time. That's because there is never a ZERO risk, so you must buttUME that there is a possibility that the unwanted side-effects might kill you (or do something else nasty to you). Yes, you must buttume that any pill you take might KILL YOU. I'd go a step further and say that you should buttume that any medication you take might even have side-effects ON YOU that aren't listed on the bottle (because everybody's health is different, and there is no way to test for ALL drug interactions, for just two good examples of why). So be prepared for just about anything to happen, and decide (based on that) if the medicine is likely to do more good than the anticipated harm. Make the decision for YOURSELF if you wish to buttume the risk.

But when a side-effect happens, just like you knew it might happen, the atbreastude is, SUE THEIR buttES OFF!!! Theoretically, punitive monetary damages against drug manufacturers might lead to safer medications. In actual practice, it just increases health care costs for everyone. And this whole mess could be avoided if every single patient (or just MOST of them) were to do what he-she is supposed to, and take just a little bit of responsibility for their own healthcare.

But Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo . . . we have to live in a society where if something bad happens, we expect monetary compensation directly from the pockets of all of our neighbors. Am I peeed off at the drug manufacturers for that? Not in the slightest. People like to buttume the worst about drug manufacturers, that they are motivated by greed to put out medications that aren't safe and make money on them. But that ignores the fact that lawsuits and related settlements are wicked fricking expensive. Drug manufacturers, being motivated by profit, are trying very hard to AVOID lawsuits.

No, I put the blame for this directly on the backs of the ambulance chasers. If someone really feels they need to sue a drug manufacturer, they will seek out and find a lawyer. What we don't need is ambulance-chaser ads on television. Only a moron would see those ads and think, "that lawyer has a point . . . the drug company deserves to PAY". The ads have the exact effect that the lawyers intended it to have . . . former users of drug X start salivating at the mouth thinking of all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ they can make, because they used to take a drug that was found to have (gasp, say it isn't so!) side-effects THAT WERE LISTED RIGHT ON THE FRICKING BOTTLE (USUALLY), FER CHRISSAKES.

In the end, it is you and me who pays for all the unnecessary (and they ARE unnecessary, mostly) lawsuits. And it's gone WAY beyond simple monetary consequences. Most people in this country are not insured at all anymore. One of my best friends has a large family, a good job with a good income, and can not afford health insurance, even though he has access to group rates. He's hardly alone. People are literally dead and dying now because of all the lawsuits that everyone can't afford to pay for anymore.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the healthcare crisis in this country, but I put most of it on the lawyers. After all, if nobody sues, the lawyers are out of work. So it is not in a lawyer's best interest to suggest that (gasp) somebody should take personal responsibility for their own healthcare decisions. There's no money to be made that way, if you are a lawyer. -Dave