So I am watching Fox News all afternoon and have seen numerous ads by lawyers soliciting clients that have taken Avandia, Levaquin, some MRI dye, and who have had some exposure to asbestos. The firms are also targeting former U.S. Navy personnel for asbestos litigation. These vultures are scum.
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2009, 04:02:33 PM
So I am watching Fox News all afternoon and have seen numerous ads by lawyers soliciting clients that have taken Avandia, Levaquin, some MRI dye, and who have had some exposure to asbestos. The firms are also targeting former U.S. Navy personnel for asbestos litigation. These vultures are scum.
I wouldn't call them scum, but really the only benefit is that somebody might realize they are in fact in need of medical treatment when they didn't realize it before.
Quote from: nathanm on April 09, 2009, 04:34:45 PM
I wouldn't call them scum, but really the only benefit is that somebody might realize they are in fact in need of medical treatment when they didn't realize it before.
I see, they are providing a public service.
I have been exposed to nonsense on TulsaNow.
Guido, help me sue somebody.
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2009, 04:45:46 PM
I see, they are providing a public service.
No, they're advertising. I don't think lawyers really need TV ads, but whatever. I'm just saying that while there's little to no benefit for society as a whole, it doesn't make them scum for doing it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 09, 2009, 06:29:51 PM
I have been exposed to nonsense on TulsaNow.
Guido, help me sue somebody.
Take a deep breath, turn to your refrigerator, remove 1-12 Marshalls, and consume. That's what I am doing right now.
okay, maybe if you explain how them advertising makes them scum then perhaps we can understand why you say they are. It's not exactly like people are laying in a hospital bed suffering from these conditions and they are in the room pushing them to sue. When it comes down to it, they are pushing their wares in a fairly tasteful way (I did say fairly there, which is a comparative term, keep that in mind)
Quote from: custosnox on April 09, 2009, 09:44:55 PM
okay, maybe if you explain how them advertising makes them scum then perhaps we can understand why you say they are. It's not exactly like people are laying in a hospital bed suffering from these conditions and they are in the room pushing them to sue. When it comes down to it, they are pushing their wares in a fairly tasteful way (I did say fairly there, which is a comparative term, keep that in mind)
Quote from: guido911 on April 09, 2009, 04:02:33 PM
The firms are also targeting former U.S. Navy personnel for asbestos litigation. These vultures are scum.
custosnox I think the above would answer why guido911 is calling them scum.
Because military personel are involved? If that is so, then guido really needs to get off of his high horse. Now I'm not in the know with this abestos stuff (in other words, I haven't paid any attention at all to it), but are the attorneys seeking compensation for the navel personel, or seeking restitution from them?
But after some thought on the matter, since he hasn't answered me himself, I am guessing the real reason he is calling them scum is because he didn't think of it first.
I see it no different then having oh 30 plus pages and full page ads in the phone book. Not to mention the easy find section tab for so many Attorney's in any given city.
They are annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to say scum as a blanket rule.
Now, when they fight imaginary robots and the like, they really take it down a notch.
I saw one about taking (If I remember correctly) maybe a Parkinson's drug and 'compulsive gambling'
"if you began compulsive gambling after taking <insert drug that mostly elderly folks take> call us."
Which I thought was freaking brilliant.
go to any casino and a large percent of the clientele is of course elderly.
*ding ding ding*
Of course, blame a drug for it!
First of all, these ads are nothing more than lazy ambulance chasing. Second, many of these firms that advertise never handle the case--they refer them to their network of regional law firms who in turn refer them to local counsels throughout the country. I know this because I have been involved with this sort of business practice. Third, some of the medications targeted by these outfits are actually pretty darned important. For example, Levaquin is a big time multifocal antibiotic; however a side effect which patients are made aware of (and which is usually avoided by contraindication questioning) is the basis of a national campaign for clients? I believe these sorts of lawsuits chills innovation and development for the sake of some lawyer making a buck. Remember who this is coming from.
I degress (and no, I have no idea how to actually spell that)
Interesting site with some interesting legal abuse stories.
http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/
In no way is the content of this post related to anyone mentioned on this thread or in this forum. I take no responsibility for the content of any web link or language posted in this thread. By clicking the link above you agree to hold harmless the poster. Furthermore, I take no responsibility for anything I say, write or do. Ever!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 10, 2009, 11:04:04 AM
They are annoying, but I wouldn't go so far as to say scum as a blanket rule.
Now, when they fight imaginary robots and the like, they really take it down a notch.
Near as I can tell Jeff Martin has stopped battling fifth-rate Transformers and gone back to an endorsement from William Shatner.
...then again the fact that modern-day William Shatner is the
less ludicrous option for a law firm ad really says something.
Quote from: guido911 on April 10, 2009, 11:43:02 AM
First of all, these ads are nothing more than lazy ambulance chasing. Second, many of these firms that advertise never handle the case--they refer them to their network of regional law firms who in turn refer them to local counsels throughout the country. I know this because I have been involved with this sort of business practice. Third, some of the medications targeted by these outfits are actually pretty darned important. For example, Levaquin is a big time multifocal antibiotic; however a side effect which patients are made aware of (and which is usually avoided by contraindication questioning) is the basis of a national campaign for clients? I believe these sorts of lawsuits chills innovation and development for the sake of some lawyer making a buck. Remember who this is coming from.
So you're saying that if a drug has serious side effects and a doctor prescribes it anyway the doctor and drug company should be immune from suit?
Or are you just saying lawyers shouldn't be able to advertise on TV?
Quote from: nathanm on April 10, 2009, 02:08:00 PM
So you're saying that if a drug has serious side effects and a doctor prescribes it anyway the doctor and drug company should be immune from suit?
There are some big qualifiers but - yes.
1: The patient MUST be aware of the side effects in language the patient can understand. Tough job, easy for the patient to deny later. Just look at people still claiming that they didn't know smoking would harm their health.
2: The immediate condition must be worse than the potential side effects.
3: Ultimately, it's the patient's choice. I don't think there is a law that requires you to follow your doctors' advice. Most of us do because the doc is usually correct.
What Red Arrow said. ;)
If they are fully advised, Red Arrow is absolutely correct.
THIS DRUG MAY INCREASE BLOOD PRESSURE AND LEAD TO DEATH. But it will give you an erection.
Millions of men thing that's a good trade off. So long as they are aware of the risk/reward, it is their decision. If it goes wrong they should LOSE any lawsuit they file unless something else was at play (undisclosed side effect, not informed prior to Rx, etc.).
For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments. Think about it, you are going to die. X drug might help you, or it might kill you. Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 13, 2009, 09:01:47 AM
For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments. Think about it, you are going to die. X drug might help you, or it might kill you. Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?
Big +1. My dad most likely got 3 more years because of experimental cancer treatments.
My orthopedist lamented Vioxx being pulled from the market as he said it was probably the best anti-inflammatory drug ever made.
What doesn't get a whole lot of weight in class-action tort is pre-existing conditions of patients. Nevermind that people having strokes or fatal heart attacks while taking a particular med were washing it down with three Big Macs, a chocolate cake, or a quart of Jack Daniels.
Granted, there are some meds which are going to exhibit negative side-effects in some patients, but it's usually a small percentage of the overall group taking the med. Mass litigation then winds up taking away useful meds from people who's lives are improved by taking the drug.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on April 13, 2009, 09:01:47 AM
If they are fully advised, Red Arrow is absolutely correct.
THIS DRUG MAY INCREASE BLOOD PRESSURE AND LEAD TO DEATH. But it will give you an erection.
Millions of men thing that's a good trade off. So long as they are aware of the risk/reward, it is their decision. If it goes wrong they should LOSE any lawsuit they file unless something else was at play (undisclosed side effect, not informed prior to Rx, etc.).
For some things, like fatal cancers, MS, or other degenerative diseases that are not curable - I wish there was a broader waiver for experimental treatments. Think about it, you are going to die. X drug might help you, or it might kill you. Why shouldn't you be allowed to try it (for free and with other conditions/controls) if you so choose?
Now I get it. A friend of mine gave me the strongest dose of 'ol' blue and like a idiot i took it.
My face and hands turned red and i could not stop looking at myself in the mirror thinking i was going to die. The last thing on my mind was sex.
Needless to say i have never had the need to self medicate where that is concerned so it's probably best to not try to.
Suggestive advertising (offering to help you with a problem you didn't know you had and likely don't have) is a staple of pharmaceutical companies and soulless lawyers. Helping people with problems is one thing, making people THINK they have a problem so you can make a buck, is another.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 13, 2009, 10:34:42 AM
Suggestive advertising (offering to help you with a problem you didn't know you had and likely don't have) is a staple of pharmaceutical companies and soulless lawyers. Helping people with problems is one thing, making people THINK they have a problem so you can make a buck, is another.
Boy, that's the truth. I have always felt that the main objective of all the prescription drug ads on TV is to convince people they have a medical condition, even if they don't, and then hound their doctors enough into prescribing the advertised medication. I read that the condition advertised as RLS (restless leg syndrome) is a complete fabrication invented by the drug makers to sell a drug that was originally designed to treat something completely different, Parkinson's disease I think. They invented the term RLS for purely advertising purposes to hock more prescriptions.
I remember the day when radio/TV advertising by lawyers and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs was against all codes of ethics, if not outright illegal. Personally, I think they should both be banned once again. But since national network TV now gets about 30%+ of its advertising revenue from drug makers, this is not likely to happen.
I'd never heard of ADHD until they invented Ritalin. I can't even begin to count the number of kids who were friends of my kids who were on it at one point or another. They didn't medicate the ADHD's when I was growing up, they just sent them to the principal's office.
I was told once in a marketing class that halitosis was not a proper medical diagnosis, rather it was a scary-sounding term invented by one of the oral care companies to sell more product.
Quote from: Steve on April 13, 2009, 04:51:15 PM
Boy, that's the truth. I have always felt that the main objective of all the prescription drug ads on TV is to convince people they have a medical condition, even if they don't, and then hound their doctors enough into prescribing the advertised medication. I read that the condition advertised as RLS (restless leg syndrome) is a complete fabrication invented by the drug makers to sell a drug that was originally designed to treat something completely different, Parkinson's disease I think. They invented the term RLS for purely advertising purposes to hock more prescriptions.
I remember the day when radio/TV advertising by lawyers and direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs was against all codes of ethics, if not outright illegal. Personally, I think they should both be banned once again. But since national network TV now gets about 30%+ of its advertising revenue from drug makers, this is not likely to happen.
Gotta love the side-effects disclaimer on the RLS drug: compulsive gambling. "My legs aren't shaking anymore, but I gotta get to the casino!!"
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2009, 10:09:23 AM
I'd never heard of ADHD until they invented Ritalin. I can't even begin to count the number of kids who were friends of my kids who were on it at one point or another. They didn't medicate the ADHD's when I was growing up, they just sent them to the principal's office.
Don't worry, many psychiatrists hadn't either. ADHD is diagnosed similar to ADD, but without requiring the patient to meet as many criteria.
My favorite is "Social Anxiety Disorder" (SAD)
I think I'm going to invent "North American Inherited Vacillating Empathy" syndrome.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 14, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
Don't worry, many psychiatrists hadn't either. ADHD is diagnosed similar to ADD, but without requiring the patient to meet as many criteria.
My favorite is "Social Anxiety Disorder" (SAD)
I think I'm going to invent "North American Inherited Vacillating Empathy" syndrome.
That they did not have a name for them until the 90s doesn't make them any less real.
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2009, 10:38:20 AM
That they did not have a name for them until the 90s doesn't make them any less real.
True. After all, remember when people used to die of "old age"? Now, it is congenital heart failure, or cancer, or stroke, or...
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 14, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
Don't worry, many psychiatrists hadn't either. ADHD is diagnosed similar to ADD, but without requiring the patient to meet as many criteria.
My favorite is "Social Anxiety Disorder" (SAD)
I think I'm going to invent "North American Inherited Vacillating Empathy" syndrome.
+1
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2009, 10:38:20 AM
That they did not have a name for them until the 90s doesn't make them any less real.
That they've come up with names for diagnoses doesn't mean certain drugs are not over-prescribed, nor that people aren't over-treated for a period far longer than necessary with certain meds.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2009, 11:36:50 AM
That they've come up with names for diagnoses doesn't mean certain drugs are not over-prescribed, nor that people aren't over-treated for a period far longer than necessary with certain meds.
No one said that they weren't over-medicated. Nathan and myself only corrected the concept that ADD/ADHD weren't real disorders.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2009, 11:36:50 AM
That they've come up with names for diagnoses doesn't mean certain drugs are not over-prescribed, nor that people aren't over-treated for a period far longer than necessary with certain meds.
Oh, I completely agree that they are in some cases overprescribed, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who need those meds.
And actually ADHD had a name a long time ago, it was called brain damage. I'm not making this up, they actually thought it was brain damage. When more sophisticated means of studying the brain came about and no damage was apparant, they called it MBD, or Minor Brain Damage. It has since gone on to several other names and I'm sure it will go through even more over the years. As far as it being a disorder, that is debatable as well (medically I have ADHD). However, the problem I have is that 98% of the kids diagnosed with it and drugged up on it have been done so by an MD. I want to know why a problem that has no physical indications, only psycological, is being diagnosed by MD's instead of psycologists and psychiatrists. [/rant]
Quote from: custosnox on April 14, 2009, 12:29:20 PM
I want to know why a problem that has no physical indications, only psycological, is being diagnosed by MD's instead of psycologists and psychiatrists. [/rant]
There's nothing wrong with an MD
starting treatment when it's a fairly standard presentation. They should be more emphatic in their encouragement for their patient to see a psychiatrist, however. (or at least a psycologist, even though they can't prescribe)
A lot of people who are willing to see MDs about physical ailments refuse to see psychiatrists for some reason. Probably because people with mental health issues are still stigmatized in society. Even this thread has some of the usual "it's not a real disorder, just work harder/get over it" attitude.
Sadly, getting over that would probably help all sorts of other problems in society, like homelessness and some petty crimes. People with undiagnosed or untreated mental health issues have a much harder time being productive members of society and are more likely to turn to crime as a result. (I'm going beyond ADD and ADHD here)
Quote from: TURobY on April 14, 2009, 11:49:50 AM
No one said that they weren't over-medicated. Nathan and myself only corrected the concept that ADD/ADHD weren't real disorders.
ADD and ADHD are too different disorders. Might as well say Catholic/Episcopal.
Quote from: sgrizzle on April 14, 2009, 01:48:31 PM
ADD and ADHD are too different disorders. Might as well say Catholic/Episcopal.
can you please define the differance between the two? ADHD has, as far as I have seen, replaced the diagnosis ADD.
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2009, 01:10:05 PM
There's nothing wrong with an MD starting treatment when it's a fairly standard presentation. They should be more emphatic in their encouragement for their patient to see a psychiatrist, however. (or at least a psycologist, even though they can't prescribe)
There is a lot wrong with an MD treating something based in psycology/psychiatry. They are trained in physialogical illnesses and ailments, not in the treatment of the mind. It's along the idea of a neurologist treating you for ovarian cancer. Both are medicines, but two differant areas. This is why they have referals.
Quote from: custosnox on April 14, 2009, 02:52:49 PM
There is a lot wrong with an MD treating something based in psycology/psychiatry.
Sure, if they don't send you to a psychiatrist or are trying to prescribe you something like Effexor (or even Wellbutrin, IMO..I've seen people really go off the reservation on that one) that can have serious side effects. But a temporary scrip for Prozac, Ritalin, or Xanax as a stopgap until you can get in to see a psychiatrist isn't really an issue.
Sometimes it can take a couple of weeks to get in. If you're having a depressive episode or you're at one of those times when your ADHD is making you nonfunctional or you are having a severe anxiety issue due to a life event, there are many relatively safe drugs that will at least take the edge off until a real treatment plan can be implemented.
Of course, part of the reason you see GPs treating people with psychiatric issues in the longer term is that many health plans either don't cover psychiatric services or cover them only with a much higher copay.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2009, 10:09:23 AM
I'd never heard of ADHD until they invented Ritalin. I can't even begin to count the number of kids who were friends of my kids who were on it at one point or another. They didn't medicate the ADHD's when I was growing up, they just sent them to the principal's office.
Right on Conan. Actually the stimulant Ritalin has been around for years before the current ADHD/ADD fads, but since discovered to have a depressive effect in adolescents. Forget proper discipline and parenting, just drug the kids into a stupor.
Funny how major TV networks still refuse to accept advertising for distilled spirits (hard liquor), but they bombarde us daily with ads for prescription drugs, many potentially addictive. I am personally sick to death of the ads for ED drugs, "woody pills." All TV advertising of prescription medications should be banned, IMO.
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2009, 03:06:07 PM
Sure, if they don't send you to a psychiatrist or are trying to prescribe you something like Effexor (or even Wellbutrin, IMO..I've seen people really go off the reservation on that one) that can have serious side effects. But a temporary scrip for Prozac, Ritalin, or Xanax as a stopgap until you can get in to see a psychiatrist isn't really an issue.
Sometimes it can take a couple of weeks to get in. If you're having a depressive episode or you're at one of those times when your ADHD is making you nonfunctional or you are having a severe anxiety issue due to a life event, there are many relatively safe drugs that will at least take the edge off until a real treatment plan can be implemented.
Of course, part of the reason you see GPs treating people with psychiatric issues in the longer term is that many health plans either don't cover psychiatric services or cover them only with a much higher copay.
I'm in the camp that believes that GP's should not be prescribing psychotropic drugs. A well-meaning, but utterly clueless GP who doesn't understand the effects of a drug like Effexor on the adrenal system can spin someone out on it when a patient comes to them with a depressive issue. Xanax is probably one of the most abused and over-prescribed scrips I've ever seen, and it's almost always from a GP who gives someone a 12 month evergreen scrip. Depression and anxiety are complex disorders which really do demand a doctor who specializes in brain chemistry. Most good Psychiatrists will also advocate counseling in depression/anxiety disorder patients.
Quote from: custosnox on April 14, 2009, 02:49:30 PM
can you please define the differance between the two? ADHD has, as far as I have seen, replaced the diagnosis ADD.
ADD = Inattentive (can't focus)
ADHD = Hyperactive (shift focus frequently)