Whenever it comes to thinking about long-running cases and complicated issues of law, “Bleak House” by Charles Dickens always comes to mind – which only goes to show a strange mind in action. Anyway, you can usually hear a Brit talking along the following lines, “For them as is in the law, the law is a very profitable business. But for them as is a victim of the law, there is no choice but to suffer.” The reality is simply put. Those who have the money can afford to buy the best legal minds to argue their cases. If they lose, there are always appeals within the state. If they run out of appeals within the state, there is always the Supreme Court. It can be years before you get a definitive answer on any case if people with money are fighting it. This lack of balance between the rich and the poor often means the poor are the losers for, even if they win at the first trial, all their money can disappear in costs as the appeals drag on. Worse still if the appeal court orders a retrial because the parties must then start again from scratch. Many poor litigants just give up. Nevertheless, if there are enough of them, the defending manufacturer can slowly eat through a lot of money in legal fees. There will come a tipping point when economics suggests the need either to settle or change the way in which the battles are to be fought.
Roche has been fighting a long-running case on its acne drug. A very small number of people taking this drug has developed an inflammatory bowel disease. They allege the drug is the cause. The lead case involves Andrew McCarrell. He lost a part of his large colon. In the first trial, the jury awarded him $2.6m. The appeal court found the judge had failed to run a “fair” trial. The retrial has just finished with an increase in the award of damages to $25m. Needless to say, this will be appealed. However, in both hearings, the juries agreed that Roche had understated the risk of bowel disease on the label and in the leaflet accompanying the drug. Even though only a tiny percentage of people may have been affected, Roche has suspended the distribution of the drug in the US. Roche is capping the number of people who might be able to sue. But the drug continues to be available on the internet.
The question is whether you should buy accutane online and use it given the existence of this litigation. The answer falls into two parts. Firstly, the case is not yet over and, until all the appeals have been completed, there is no finding that the drug is the cause of this disease. Even if the courts do decide the medical evidence proves the link, it is accepted that accutane helps millions of people to overcome acne while only one or two people in each year contract bowel disease. As it stands, US-based dermatologists continue to recommend accutane. Just as there are risks in most surgical procedures and the use of other drugs, so a small number of people are at risk from bowel disease. So far, it is not suggested that anyone has died. However you look at it, this drug remains the best and most effective form of treatment. In real terms, it is a safe drug when compared to the levels of risk in the use of all powerful prescription medications. Although Roche has adopted a safety-first approach, you can still buy generic accutane online and use it without too many worries.