"LOFF56 RESPONDS TO PL'S "THERE ARE NO 'NATURAL CAUSES' OF DEATH FOR A 32-YEAR OLD!"/PL RESPONDS!

Here's LOFF56:

I definitely agree with the principal of what you're both saying - that drug companies and doctors alike are nefariously putting us at undue risk for their own personal gain. But by definition I think the coroner was right that it was an accidental death. (Although I admit the possibility exists that all the facts weren't presented and there was more to it than what's been made public).

An accident is the societal justification of a statistically inevitable negative result of a risk. (In an absolute sense there should be no such thing as an "accident" - everything happens for a reason.) It's just that the degree of how "accidental" an event is is proportional to our judgment of the value of the positive benefits associated with that risk. It's staggering the number of people that die in automobile accidents each year. Yet most of us don't think twice about getting into a car - and, by the way, very rarely do we blame those accidents on the auto industry.

It's all about statistics. If .1% of drivers die in a car accident this year, when it does happen it's not a stretch to call it an accident. If 1% of people die of an adverse affect to a prescription drug, it's still statistically an accident when it does happen. Unless of course you don't believe at all in any benefit of prescription drugs, then in that case increasing your risk of death by 1% for no apparent benefit disqualifies a negative result from being considered an accident. But it would be the same for someone who say doesn't believe in the benefits of driving a car, to them adding a .1% risk of death is just foolish.

I realize that there may be some other factors in this particular case such as intentional overdose, which in my analogy I guess would be like driving 120 miles an hour at night in the rain - if you die, than yes, it's your own damn fault. Or maybe negligence on the doctors part, perhaps not noticing the conflicting circumstances, I guess that would be like a mechanic failing to fix your brakes correctly. In both cases there is someone to blame for the accident. But in both of those cases you can't blame the drug company or the car company for that specific result.

I'm not trying to absolve the drug companies in any way, personally I think there are aspects of what they do that reach into the realm of what the tobacco companies do. And the more we learn about the drugs they produce the more the risk to benefit ratio changes. But they're no where near 100% risk and 0% benefit that the tobacco companies have managed to accomplish. There are still tangible benefits they provide. Penicillin would be one, however a cure for Restless Leg Syndrome - not so much. When they start adding risk with no tangible benefit, that's when they become reckless and irresponsible. But I don't think we should tear down the whole industry, but for sure we need to beat the greed out of them like there's no tomorrow!!

Here's PL:

Well, I know we've had this discussion before on this blog, the one bad apple/don't throw the baby out with the bath water debate. But you know what, when there's enough bad apples in a particular bunch on a regular basis, you stop going to that orchard. I think that the pharmaceutical industry has reached the tobacco industry's low bar. I mean, hey, cigarettes help reduce anxiety for some people in the short run while helping them create cancer, right? And cars? Yes, actually, cars are pretty much an insane, archaic mode of transportation that at this point does more harm than good en masse.

Big Pharma has gone so far beyond a few potentially useful antibiotics or analgesics to a place where they make Frank Lucas, the heroin kingpin made famous in "American Gangster" look like not much more than a benign hipster. Sorry, L56, I can't let 'em off the hook that easily. At best, if it's not technically homicide, then Brittany's doctors and pharmacists were complicit in her suicide.