Medication is the new way to level the playing field. What may be a new eerie trend is discussed in a recent New York Times article. Interviewed for the piece, Dr. Michael Anderson prescribes psychotropic drugs for children who are not doing well in school. The children mentioned come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds and thus attend overwhelmed and understaffed schools. What may well be caused by entirely external factors is being tackled with drugs whose long-term effects are not yet entirely known, particularly for children. These won’t be known for years to come, as the drugs are relatively new.

Some side effects are known. These include “growth suppression, increased blood pressure and, in rare cases, psychotic episodes.” In the case of Quintn Rocafort, he had to be taken off Adderall and hospitalized for a week, because he was hallucinating and became suicidal. Yet this did not stop his parents from putting his twelve and nine-year-old siblings on the very same drug. Siblings, who according to the parents, do not even have A.D.H.D. Quintn was put on Risperdal after his experience with Adderall.

This is egregious. The level of irresponsibility is unfathomable  because it is impossible to know what the full repercussions of long-term exposure to these drugs are for children. Only time can tell.

Side effects aside, there is a terrible lesson being taught to vulnerable minds: If you are not well adjusted now, this pill will solve your problem. Where is the accountability? Sometimes the lesson is to try, sometimes it is to try and fail. Learning to fall and then get up is a skill that must be learned like any other skill.

The efforts of Dr Anderson are noble, but entirely misguided. Giving medication to children who are doing poorly in school simply for the sake of performing better is a terrible, short-term solution for a long-term problem. Is this child to depend on drugs for the rest of his academic life? And at what cost?

Alexis, Ethan, and Perry, the rest of the Rocafort children, may be doing well in school now, but there is no lesson gained, only a lesson lost. I am not advocating the eradication of psychotropic drugs. Certainly they have their uses, and should be used at an adequate time and place. What is appalling is not just that they are being given to children who do not need them, but also that this decision-making seems to be done arbitrarily.

The article Treatment for Tots appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

The jury verdict in the case of State of South Carolina versus Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Johnson & Johnson, has been upheld and requests for a new trial denied, affirming groundbreaking $327 million in civil penalties against the manufacturers of the drug Risperdal. Circuit Court Judge Roger Couch announced the rulings onDecember 20 through two written orders.

One order denies the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial; the second order denies the defendant’s motion to alter or amend the judgment and/or for a new trial. John B. White, Jr. and Donald C. Coggins, Jr.of Harrison, White, Smith & Coggins, P.C., a Spartanburg-based law firm, along with John Simmons of the Simmons Law Firm, a Columbia-based law firm, and Bailey Perrin Bailey, a Texas based law firm represented South Carolina in the case.

“We are obviously very pleased with Judge Couch’s decision and his careful consideration of this matter,” stated John B. White, Jr. one of the attorneys representing the state in the case. “The verdict handed down by the jury is just and speaks the truth. The damages awarded further substantiated the level of deception Janssen used in business practices in our state. Once again, we have sent a clear message to drug companies that deceptive business practices will not be tolerated in South Carolina.”

On March 22, 2011 a jury in the Spartanburg Court of Common Pleas found that New Jersey-based Janssen willfully violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce in the “dear doctor” letter of November 10, 2003and the drug label (package insert).

This decision represents the first jury verdict that finds the defendant violated unfair trade practices since the inception of its pharmaceutical product. The “dear doctor” letter, sent to more than 7,000 doctors across South Carolina, and the package insert were found to be misleading about the safety and effectiveness of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal. Risperdal was introduced by Janssen in 1994 and by 2005, generated annual revenues in excess of $3.5 billion.

On June 3, 2011 civil penalties amounting to $327,073,700 were ordered by Circuit Court Judge Roger Couch based upon violations found with the drug labels and “dear doctor” letters. Regarding the drug label violations, the judge ruled that 509,499 package inserts were distributed with sample boxes, and levied$300 per violation for a total drug label awarded damages of $152,849,700.

Regarding the “dear doctor” letter violations, the judge ruled that 7,184 letters were mailed and 36,372 were provided during sales calls, and levied $4000 per violation for a total “dear doctor” letter awarded damages of $174,224,000. The combination of the drug label and letter damages of $327,073,700 amounts to the highest verdict brought against Janssen for the drug Risperdal.

The article Janssen Case: Record Breaking $327 Million Verdict Upheld appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.