philologist, but I'm reasonably certain that most folks wouldn't describe a two year old as an infant. But these products all gave instructions to call a doctor before giving the stuff to kids under two. Very well: they don't want to get sued. But then shouldn't they be calling them "Toddler Drops"? I querried the pharmacist and got a wry expression. "I can't officially tell you that this stuff is OK, but..." with a shrug of the shoulders. Then she got out the Illustrated Magic Golden Book of Pharmacological Secrets and showed me the suggested dose for a 7-month old. "Why isn't this printed on the product?" I asked. "Well, they want you call a doctor first." Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Alright, I get the picture: the big pharm laywers don't want their companies getting sued, but the markerters don't want to lose market share on the parents-of-children-under-two demographic (a notoriously worriesome lot, ready to shell out big bucks at the first appearance of discomfort). So the solution is simple: advertise the product as made for infants, but tell them in fine print that they really shouldn't give it to infants if they don't call a doctor first. Everyone's happy, right? Sure--as long as you're happy making health care decisions by reading between the lines or calling to pester your physician about every over-the-counter medication on the market (and do you really think your physician is going to answer such potentially incriminating questions over the telephone? Dream on.). But that's the price of living in the Land of the Litigious: when it comes to product packaging, passing the buck is safer than giving a straightforward answer.Sorry for the rant. I'll try not to let it become a habit.
5 comments:
Curses. You've seen through our clever plot.
"Our"? I thought conservative bloggers tended to favor tort reform. Or perhaps your first year in law school has socialized you to accept the inevitable: litigation brings home the bacon.
You are correct, me boy, my ox is indeed being gored at present, and my views have changed accordingly. Although frankly, I don't think "tort reform" is a great idea in any event. The problem is in the judicial system itself, and changing the possible awards will simply have harmful side-effects due to the corruption inherent in the system.
My only contribution from Davy Crockett Law School is that, in criminal law, the word "infant" means any person under the age of 18...the wonders of legalese...
What a cynical take! C'mon, David! They care about YOU. That's why they want you to call a doctor first. They don't want to make money off you--they're just spending all of their time trying to figure out ways to HELP you. They CARE about you. Really.
*cough* *cough*
Post a Comment