So now you can sue the drug company who cured your cancer

This will never ever see a court room

If it were you and the options were a cancer free Naploeon or a hair free Napoleon what would you choose?

Maybe you don't mind the idea of a long dirt nap.

You're right, we should throw out all semblance of common sense. I do not understand society, we were given a brain to make decisions with, but we are getting closer and closer to just trying to say every situation is similar.

If they took a cancer drug that saved them but gave them a deadleg for the rest of their life? Yeah I can see suing over that. A drug that saved a life but made them blind? Yet again, logically makes sense.

But hair. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOSING HAIR.

Yea, my fiance that just got through with chemo from breast cancer saw that commercial and freaked out about her hair not growing back.

quote:

---

But hair. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOSING HAIR.

---

What if it gave you serious acne for the rest of your life, or changed the color of your skin to something unusual? What if it made women grow thick facial hair, or made men grow breast tissue?

At some point, adverse cosmetic effects become a serious problem because of the way it can affect a person's self-esteem and quality of life. People do get judged based on their appearance, and there is plenty of evidence to show that people who are more attractive have certain advantages over less attractive people.

Bottom line: if the side effect causes damage to a person, whether it's physical or psychological, then you can sue for damages. It's a tautology.

I think the key is not that side effects occur, but that consumers/patients were not adequately advised of the risks of side effects. I'm not very familiar with the case the OP is talking about, but I'd imagine the case hinges on lack of information regarding side effects rather than the side effects themselves. Lots of drugs and treatments have serious side effects that are arguably much worse than hair loss, but people can't sue over those as long as they've been properly advised about the risks of those side effects. Normally, a doctor obtains informed consent from their patients before going forward with a course of treatment. A patient will have a hard time suing if they've given informed consent.

So I looked it up, and I was right: the people who took the drug are suing because they claim the drug company failed to warm them about, and even covered up, the risk of permanent hair loss.

This is really about informed consent. Every patient has the right to know what risks a course of treatment will have for them, and they have the right to seek damages when they suffer side effects that they were not adequately informed about prior to treatment.

It's taken a lot of reassurance that I still love her even if she is bald. Another poster was right, it's a big self esteem issue for women to lose their hair.

In our case the oncologist was clear that the drugs would cause temporary hair loss, I don't recall any mention of possibility of permanent hair loss. Fortunately hers is slowly growing back and everyone I've met that has gone through the process has regained their hair.

quote:

---

At some point, adverse cosmetic effects become a serious problem because of the way it can affect a person's self-esteem and quality of life

---

Fine, but the value of a person's quality of life is intrinsically less than the value of life itself. As such the value of the adverse cosmetic effects should not exceed the value of the drugs NECESSARY to preserve life. Do you think any attorney would represent a cancer survivor knowing the maximum damages recoverable are less than the cost of the drugs that caused the adverse cosmetic effects?