Poll: Should I sue?

[SonicWaffle]

I voted yes but so long as you don't turn into the type of person who claims compensation for tripping in work (i.e being rewarded for idiocy) or for getting hurt at a friends house (i.e Douchebaggery)

Were I to trip at work, I'd have to sue myself, since as the resident First Aider I'm supposed to make sure the office is free of the kind of hazards that would lead people to sue. I'd clean me out, and take myself for all that I had...

As for making a claim about getting hurt at a friend's house, this might be workable but none of my friends have any money so it becomes pointless ;-)

 

[Kelbear]

So, today my girlfriend alerted me to a recall of a medicine called Accutane, also known as Isotretinoin - link here, apologies for the fact it's a "how to claim" site but they're filling up Google currently;

http://www.accutaneclaimcenter.org/

It's common usage is for the treatment of severe acne. I took the medicine for over three months last year, before I had to stop due to developing Ulcerative Colitis. If you don't know what that is, check wikipedia, but if you want to avoid throwing up then don't look at the picture.

Boiled down to the basics, bowel ulcers. Crapping blood, constant pain, never being able to go more than five minutes away from a toilet...not fun. I also had to undergo two colonoscopies, they involve putting a camera somewhere that a camera should never go which frankly causes a lot of distress. After stopping taking the drug and starting an intensive course of anti-inflammatories, steroids (to counter the side effects of the anti-inflammatories) and calcium tablets (to counter the side effects of the steroids) the UC cleared up, and at my final outpatients appointment the doctor told me that I didn't actually have Ulcerative Colitis; that I had merely had a bad reaction to the Isotretinoin. Unfortunately, in the three weeks or so since I stopped taking the medication, the UC has resurfaced and is making life very unpleasant again.

Now, I'm in somewhat of a dilemma. My girlfriend, family and friends are encouraging me to try and get some compensation. However, ever since I first saw the South Park episode with Sexual Harassment Panda I've held dear his latter motto, that "frivolous lawsuits damage society". On the one hand, I really don't want to be the kind of guy who sues people. On the other, there is a chance that I'll be shitting blood for the rest of my life.

What do I do? Does this count as a frivolous lawsuit or do you guys think I'm entitled to something?

Suing people for a legitimate reason reinforces order in society, perhaps even justice at times.

If you happen to be compensated from the process, that is merely a beneficial side-effect of doing the right thing.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Accutane is a down right dangerous drug to begin with and has more symptoms than a case of Lupus. I ended up suffering from an Iron defficiency and shrinking blood cells when I took the stuff.

From what I gathered from reading about what happened to you, a doctor might tell you to not sue as from what I gather, Rocha have printed warnings about Bowel Disease on the packaging, so it should be relativley safe legaly. Just because a Court allowed it to happen in the US, doesn't mean a British court will allow it.
The Doctor might be protected as well. Did you sign a liability waiver like I had to? If you didn't, you could get the Doctor on Malpratice...perhaps (I don't study law so don't take my word for it)

I feel for your problem, and if you feel strongly about it, consult both a doctor and a lawyer in person (ignore these silly legal websites).

There was no mention of bowel problems on the packaging, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't on the pamphlet either; I make a point of always reading them. In fact, it took me a while to go to the doctor over it because he told me that areas of "sensitive" skin (anus, inside of nostrils, lips) would become drier and far more likely to crack and bleed due to the isotretinoin. I assumed that the blood was down to the cracked skin, and so the first few weeks passed me by. It wasn't until the pains started that I went to see the doc who, by the way, denied ever telling me that there would be bleeding and scolded me for not coming in before. Dick.

As for the liability waiver, I did indeed sign one, but not until after I'd been diagnosed with UC. The waiver was for any accidents which might occur during the colonoscopy, not for the effects of the drugs.

 

[acosn]

to some degree you have an obligation since the company that made the product won't learn if they don't get buried in a torrential downpour of lawsuits. Don't worry, they probably have the money.

Its the entire reason we have the ability to sue- someone wronged you in a way that the government really has no business making recompense to you for.

 

[DustyDrB]

I thought you had to sign a waiver to use Accutane nowadays.

 

[DJShire]

If a company puts out a product that causes that kind of "side effect", one that is so severe that it can put you in a hospital, then yes, sue the bastards....there has to be a class action lawsuit for it already, if not, start one up.

 

[Baldry]

Well if you knew what the side-effects were, or that there wass any chance of you crrapping blood then No. Otherwise I say yes.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

So, today my girlfriend alerted me to a recall of a medicine called Accutane, also known as Isotretinoin - link here, apologies for the fact it's a "how to claim" site but they're filling up Google currently;

http://www.accutaneclaimcenter.org/

It's common usage is for the treatment of severe acne. I took the medicine for over three months last year, before I had to stop due to developing Ulcerative Colitis. If you don't know what that is, check wikipedia, but if you want to avoid throwing up then don't look at the picture.

Boiled down to the basics, bowel ulcers. Crapping blood, constant pain, never being able to go more than five minutes away from a toilet...not fun. I also had to undergo two colonoscopies, they involve putting a camera somewhere that a camera should never go which frankly causes a lot of distress. After stopping taking the drug and starting an intensive course of anti-inflammatories, steroids (to counter the side effects of the anti-inflammatories) and calcium tablets (to counter the side effects of the steroids) the UC cleared up, and at my final outpatients appointment the doctor told me that I didn't actually have Ulcerative Colitis; that I had merely had a bad reaction to the Isotretinoin. Unfortunately, in the three weeks or so since I stopped taking the medication, the UC has resurfaced and is making life very unpleasant again.

Now, I'm in somewhat of a dilemma. My girlfriend, family and friends are encouraging me to try and get some compensation. However, ever since I first saw the South Park episode with Sexual Harassment Panda I've held dear his latter motto, that "frivolous lawsuits damage society". On the one hand, I really don't want to be the kind of guy who sues people. On the other, there is a chance that I'll be shitting blood for the rest of my life.

What do I do? Does this count as a frivolous lawsuit or do you guys think I'm entitled to something?

A frivolous lawsuit is when you sue for a massive amount of money when the actual damages were minimal (or your own fault). You suffered with a condition for months and probably had to spend quite a bit of money on medication and doctor visits. The Pharmaceutical company was at fault for releasing a product that eventually got recalled.

I would check with your doctor and a lawyer, but personally I would at least sue for medical costs and damages. I know people with UC and nobody should have to go through that shit for no reason.

 

[Loves2spooge]

The be all and end all of it is; do what you think is right. If you feel there's no need to sue someone, because it really hasn't affected you that much, then don't, or that you can take someone else's money simply because the opportunity has arisen, then don't, that's tantamount to stealing.

The judicial system is already being abused as it is, and to be fully honest, a case against a pharmaceutical company is a hard one to win. Even if you hire a very good attourney, you can guarantee that the company will have a staff of lawyers working on retainer for any such eventuality.

Hope this has offered some insight.

Thanks man. Of all the great replies I've had, both positive and negative, yours was the most helpful.

Yeah, it's shit, and I hate the idea of being stuck with this for the rest of my life. When I really examine my motives though, I have to admit I'm motivated by greed more than a desire to see wrongs righted and as you say, that is purely opportunistic. Getting some money would be cool, but it isn't going to cure this problem.

This whole thread was started because I wasn't sure whether it was right or not. A lot of people seem to have misinterpreted me as asking whether I'd win or not, which was never the intention. Thankyou for your input, you've been great.

No problem man. As I said though, pharmaceutical lawsuits are by far some of the most difficult to win, and can be incredibly expensive. Commonly, cases that are won include producers cutting corners in production, including chemicals which are renowned to react abnormally with human chemistry, and companies selling their products as a solution to problems they weren't made for.

Even though in your case, where you've has a side effect that wasn't stated in the literature, it's still not a guarantee that you could succeed in a lawsuit. The problem is simply human chemistry, and drugs develop new side effects in their lifetime. For all you know, there could be others who have had the same effect as you, but didn't report it to the maker of it. Accutane is also a very potent drug, and the fact you had to sign a waiver before using it attests to the fact that there is risk attached. The signing of the waiver alone could absolve your case; even the shortest sentence in it could send a case crumbling, even if the user happened to die and the family was claiming.

The best thing you could honestly do, is to report to the producer of the drug that the drug has caused UC. They could offer to pay medical bills to resolve the problem, or even forward you to a specialist, but the least they'll do is include it in future waivers that it's a possible side-effect, and you can have the satisfaction in knowing you've made others aware of this issue.

 

[SnipErlite]

Go get 'em champ.

No really. Do a little more research, try and get another opinion.

Then sue them bitches!

Good luck.

 

[Pimppeter2]

It's common usage is for the treatment of severe acne. I took the medicine for over three months last year, before I had to stop due to developing Ulcerative Colitis.

My brother has UC (diagnosed this year), and now I'm wondering it he also took those pills.

 

[Canid117]

If you are shitting blood due to a reason other than your own stupidity then I wouldn't call the lawsuit frivolous.

 

[TheSquirrelisKing]

I would say that you have a legitimate reason to sue, if they knew that it was harmful during the period that it was prescribed to.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Even though in your case, where you've has a side effect that wasn't stated in the literature, it's still not a guarantee that you could succeed in a lawsuit. The problem is simply human chemistry, and drugs develop new side effects in their lifetime. For all you know, there could be others who have had the same effect as you, but didn't report it to the maker of it. Accutane is also a very potent drug, and the fact you had to sign a waiver before using it attests to the fact that there is risk attached. The signing of the waiver alone could absolve your case; even the shortest sentence in it could send a case crumbling, even if the user happened to die and the family was claiming.

The best thing you could honestly do, is to report to the producer of the drug that the drug has caused UC. They could offer to pay medical bills to resolve the problem, or even forward you to a specialist, but the least they'll do is include it in future waivers that it's a possible side-effect, and you can have the satisfaction in knowing you've made others aware of this issue.

Well, I didn't have to sign a waiver for the drug. At any stage. I signed a waiver later before having a colonoscopy performed, but that was all, and I don't think it applied retroactively to the drugs.

In addition, the producer are well aware of the drug's effects; they've recalled it from usage, have already paid out $33 million in damages related to accutane, and have at least 5,000 pending lawsuits relating to it. So...yeah. They know

 

[SonicWaffle]

It's common usage is for the treatment of severe acne. I took the medicine for over three months last year, before I had to stop due to developing Ulcerative Colitis.

My brother has UC (diagnosed this year), and now I'm wondering it he also took those pills.

When did his symptoms manifest? For me, I'd taken the pills for around two months before the bleeding began, and about two-and-a-half before the serious pain and diarrhea started. He may have been on a different dosage though, so I'm not sure about the timescale.

 

[Iron Lightning]

A good number of other posters here have said that your medicine has been recalled for a year now. If such is the case, then it seems that (if nothing else) you could sue the doctor for prescribing a recalled medicine or the pharmacy company making such available in the first place. It appears to me that this issue seems to be worked out by now, I wish you luck in the suite.

 

[13thforswarn]

If you'll be "shitting out blood" for the rest of your life, sue.

Get a second opinion first. Have another doctor look into it. If he says that the other doctor has done something wrong that has resulted in this not going away, or in fact being the reason as to why it happened, then sue.

However, there is a possibility that you can be blamed for it all, and so I suggest that you do heavy research on the matter before even thinking about suing.

QFT.

If you'll be "shitting out blood" for the rest of your life, sue.

 

[BGH122]

You make good points, but there are a few things to consider. For one, the doctor who prescribed me the drugs in the first place is a dermatologist, and unlikely to save many lives. Makes him no less worthy, though.

This is hugely untrue.

Sorry if I seem unnecessarily offensive or presumptuous in the following spiel, but this misconception angers me. Dermatologists will save lives. Just one of the many, many deadly, horrific diseases dermatologists deal with is Epidermolysis Bullosa. To save you the trouble of looking it up, EB patients have a genetic problem with their Desmoplakin gene causing the filament that exists between the dermis and the epidermis to disappear. In layman terms this means that every time their skin takes a tiny bit of friction (such as rubbing or scratching) the upper level of skin directly translates that force to the softer lower level causing a severe friction blister which bursts, gets infected and develops scar tissue. Without continuous care by a very skilful dermatologist the patient will die from the infections.

I've worked in Dermatopathology and Dermatology in the past and it's always seemed unfair that most people think 'Oh, they're not real doctors'. If you get basal cell carcinoma you'll get transferred to a dermatologist/dermatological oncologist. Without their aid you would die, fast and painfully.

Second, he has since prescribed me a couple of creams to use on the acne which work very well. I'm not sure why he didn't do that from the start, as surely a cream is better than a drug treatment in most cases?

This is something he and you need to sort out with one another. It sounds to me, as a lowly pre-med student, like the information he had at the time when first making a diagnosis was insufficient (through no fault of your own, unfortunately it is often the case that doctors have to take a somewhat trial and error approach, administering treatments that may well turn out to be useless, or worse, just so as to isolate that the symptoms aren't caused by a specific problem). It's unfortunately the case that we all exhibit hindsight bias (thinking that, in hindsight, something was as obvious at the time as it is to us now). As it is currently, these creams seem to be working wonders for you, but that may well be due to the fact that he successfully isolated the fact that the previous treatment he administered you did not cure the symptoms and ergo changed his diagnosis/prognosis to reflect this fact and moved to a different treatment on this basis. It may well be that the unpleasant treatment he administered at first was all part of the process of diagnosing exactly what was/is wrong with you. It may well be that he just completely screwed up, in which case he's to blame, but then you still have to consider whether suing him would really be morally justified or whether you'd just be trying to wrangle some money out of him (which, regardless of morality, the court might grant).

Third, I'm not blaming him. I'm blaming the corporation who, despite being aware of the dangers (how could they not be?) still continued to sell the drug. The guy was trying to help, I don't blame him, and I wouldn't sue him.

I see, so you'd be looking to sue the drug company themselves? Well this is a massively different legal battle to the one I envisioned, not least in the fact that drug companies typically have huge reserves of cash to draw upon in the case of litigation. In this case you'd need to see a lawyer specialising in this type of thing and ask him what your options are. Since you're not going for malpractice, but instead attacking the drug itself you ought to learn what your realistic chance is against the drug company; remember: lawsuits can get very expensive very quickly.

You should also take into account that, even if you do succeed, the drug company will almost certainly try to offload the legal burden onto the doctor by turning it into a malpractice suit claiming that their drug is not defective (after all, they've spend ages and millions developing it), but that the doctor mis-prescribed it. These are all facts to way up.

I respect the fact that you're trying to avoid needless litigation. It speaks well of your character to see that you're taking all considerations into account before making the more typical greedy dash for a lawsuit.

 

[Veret]

Because it costs money and frankly I can think of a lot of better ways to spend the money. Like, you know, anything else.

Because it is a waste of money which contributes to the "natural medicine" industry which promotes misinformation about medical treatments and the efficacy of their "alternative" treatments?
Why spend money on something when you KNOW there are no real effects?

Because you don't know any such thing. Homeopathy obviously doesn't work in any way that Western medical science can understand, but no scientist worth his salt should simply assume that we already know everything. Personally, I don't know whether it actually works, having weighed the possibility of a) Western medical knowledge being woefully incomplete against b) several million people being full of shit. The reason I came down in favor of alternative medicine in this thread is because, if the possibility exists that we can have an effective treatment without side effects, we owe it to ourselves to investigate properly.

I'm going to cut this short because we are veering away from the original topic. OP has heard my opinion on the matter, so if you want to discuss homeopathy any further you are both welcome to send me a pm.

 

[AmayaOnnaOtaku]

Second opition especially from a specialist. Then go after the manufacter. Since from my pharmacy background accutane has some fucked up side effects. Not to mention Prednisone which as an asthmatic I despise.