Question: How hard would it be to sue a law firm that scares elderly people with their ads?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2015 11:48 AM GMT
    My Alzheimer's afflicted father saw the ads on TV about the (POSSIBLE) side effect of internal bleeding from taking Xarelto, so without telling anyone, he began to hide the fact that he stopped taking it. When hospitalized for another problem, they discovered he stopped taking it because of the ads. icon_mad.gif


    I wonder, what would happen to these ambulance chasers if given a taste of their own medicine? I'd like to find a law firm that would sue the $%#* out of one of the big-TV name firm for "intentional infliction of emotional harm" or something like that. icon_wink.gif

    Force them to tone down the hyperbole in their ads; mention that internal bleeding is only a possible side effect, one that your Doctor and the FDA are well aware of.


    Has anyone else ever thought about suing a lawyer/firm for their ads?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2015 12:40 PM GMT
    it'd be hard... because they are obeying the law.

    Some time ago, a law was passed forcing drug commercials to list all the side effects that are possible with the drugs. Because the ads always used to just tout the benefits, and people would seek them out, often not believe the doctor if they thought it wasn't a fit, or would have a bad interaction with other meds, or for so many other reasons.

    There was some aspect to this being good for the elderly too, since it was impossible for old eyes to read the micro-fine print on the little paper that comes in the box with the meds.

    The law is to tell the good with the bad.

    You OUGHT to sue whomever wasn't making sure that your dad was taking his meds. The fault is theirs, not the ad agency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2015 6:33 AM GMT
    Dunno... back in the 80's (?) the Washington Fruit Commission sued "60 Minutes" over their fraudulent stories about plant growth regulators, that scared people off of eating apples. Their defense was that "Anything seen on television is for entertainment only, and nobody should take it seriously." The supreme court agreed with that.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jul 12, 2015 6:48 AM GMT
    'Caveat Emptor' A Latin phrase for "let the buyer beware." However, if you have the money, anyone can sue; winning is another thing. Most likely, it would take an act of Congress.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2015 7:05 AM GMT
    I'm still 10 years from being demented but ever since they started listing all the possible side effects in ads, I'd already decided pretty much no thanx to meds. Not quite an xtian scientist, I'll do what's absolutely require but I'd not do any of the optional crap.

    Headache,
    back pain,
    pain in the legs or arms,
    abdominal pain,
    nausea,
    stomach upset,
    diarrhea, and
    high blood pressure.
    Bone pain,
    joint pain,
    muscle pain,
    low-trauma femoral fractures

    Are you fucking kidding me with that. Boniva reads worse than the plagues of Passover. Instead, I'll just suffer through this arthritis, thank you.

    But more seriously, you need to take this development and not use it to strike out at the world but to figure your own self out and your relationship to your dad and your responsibilities to that and prepare yourself for this getting worse.

    The more dementia takes over, the more you will have to think and act for him and if you are his closest surviving kin and medical surrogate--or even as guide to your mother or his wife if she has not predeceased him--make decisions that he'd have made had he not developed dementia. You might very well wind up making life and death decisions for a person who is not you. I understand the frustration but suing a law firm is the least of your problems. Good luck.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2015 11:47 AM GMT
    AMoonHawk said 'Caveat Emptor' A Latin phrase for "let the buyer beware." However, if you have the money, anyone can sue; winning is another thing. Most likely, it would take an act of Congress.


    Totally true.

    On the other hand remember the woman who won a big judgment from McDonalds for burning herself when she spilled their coffee.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2015 4:01 PM GMT
    I'm sure you could successfully sue Fox News for scaring elderly people - a lot of elderly people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 11:44 AM GMT
    Then I'd have to sue myself.

    He was palming the pill, and then tossing it in the trash balled-up with tissues.


    I said he had dementia, not that he is dumb. icon_wink.gif


    Metta knows whereof I speak.



    Anyway, the gist of my post was that these bad law firms are possibly doing more harm than good and some type of regulation might be in order.
    Not just harming the elderly, but since this happened, my dads Doc has related several anecdotes of similar occurrences with other age groups, in fact someone above mentioned the possible (possible!) side effects of Boniva or some such drug.

    Since lawyers have been allowed to advertise on TV, the country has not only gotten more litigious, but more suspicious...and not of the things they ought to be wary.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2015 11:47 AM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidI'm sure you could successfully sue Fox News for scaring elderly people - a lot of elderly people.



    As far as I know, no one who watches Fox has had a life-threatening situation due to watching Fox.

    Please keep your ad homiem attacks to a minimum and in the correct forum.
    Thanks.