Click this link for the story

In March 2010 J&J recalled this over the counter medicine. The parents never looked at the news, newspaper or web for the next 4 months or else they would've know it was recalled before giving it to their 2 year old for a slight fever in July 2010.

Could it be that a normal dose would have not killed the child, even when there is too much of the active ingredient in it? Could it be that the parents were unaware about the recall and wanted to make sure their son's fever would definitely drop by giving him a "little extra" which in this case proved deadly because of the higher concentration of the working ingredient?

Will sueing all board members and the CEO of J&J for all the money they have, bring their son back and/or make them happy? They will be filthy rich but surely they would still be unhappy as they dont have their son to enjoy the money with?

Im sitting on the fence here. Yes J&J made an error in production. However they did what was required and issued a recall. If the parents had bought the product AFTER the recall was issued, it would be the fault of the shopowner for not removing the faulty batch off their shelves.
So maybe more are to blame than just J&J. The store owner is to blame and if the parents indeed give that little bit extra, they would be to blame too. Not to mention that as a parent I have the duty to be up to date about recalled products.

What do you think? Who is really to blame and if you were the parents, would you sue a huge company in this case?
Kudos to the parents for taking on such a large multinational company in court, I dont like their chances of winning though

Recalls happen, regularly, and in all industries.

With cars, you get a personal letter as they have your details on file.

What are companies supposed to do? Get the names and addresses of every person that buys their product (and the customer gets annoyed about invasion of privacy?) so they can send someone personally to the house to remove the recalled product in case the buyer doesn't watch the news?

As long as they followed the recall procedure, what else could have been done?

I'm not impressed with J&J for many reasons (they put so much crap in their products that is unnecessary and I question their ethics), but I don't see how this can be lumped on them beyond a shadow of a doubt of being liable for this childs death. Mistakes happen, and they alerted the public (in this case). Their 'stealth' recall in the past wasn't cool that's for sure.

ETA: if this was my child, I would possibly sue as well as I would be so mad and if I gave the right dose, I would want to blame them...., but it would be a long shot to win that's for sure.

I agree about the stealth recall, but at least they achieved the important goal of getting the defective product off the shelves. It was just a sneaky way of doing this and I have no clue why they believed they had to do it this way.

But yeah, it will be very hard to prove in court without reasonable doubt that J&J are solely responsible. The autopsy said there was no medical reason for his liver to fail, but it also doesn't say it was the Tynelol that caused the damage either. Jury needs to look at the facts and not insinuations.
Also J&J insists the levels of the ingredient were not high enough to cause serious problems. They wont be saying this without something to prove this. That would be very very silly if they make these statements without backup.
If they can prove that the concentration of the ingredient, was not high enough to kill a child, then it might be the parents who made the mistake to give that bit extra or even misread the original recommended dosage on the bottle.

Im no fan of J&J either, but to pin this on them is a bit far fetched. Yet this is my personal opinion ofcourse.

The article is from America so uses the US name for the active ingredient which is paracetamol.

I can't say I have checked recently if there are any recalls on the Children's Panadol I bought last Winter but would be extremely angry if it contained more than the stated concentration of paracetamol.

J&J have very little power to reach consumers who don't read the ads in papers or listen to radio/watch TV. It is their fault the Tylenol was incorrectly manufactured but probably not their fault that the parents of this boy didn't know.

As an aside, the description of vomiting blood within 30 minutes does not really sound like paracetamol poisoning and elevation of liver enzymes threefold is not really that severe. That doesn't change the tragedy of the situation for his family.

How would any of us know the answers to that? Nobody will know this until there has been a trial.

If the regular dose of Tylenol was found to be the cause of death, however, yes, of course J&J should be held responsible.

i think manufacturers. sure,they issued a recall, but recalls are fallible, as seen here. so inevitably, they pay the consequences of lives lost due to their error.

least they could do. how horrible

I think if there was more then double a normal dose in a product and it was a small child, then certainly yes, it could kill...these products like panadol ect are NOT harmless things, they are very strong sometimes fatal chemicals that we need to use with way more caution then we do.

For an adult, it would be very odd for paracetomol poisining to be fatal in less than 24 hours of consumption. Many people who overdose on paracetomol are fine for a few days, and by the time they are unwell it is getting too late...there is a very good antidote for paracetomol overdoses that can be taken to prevent liver failure....very hard to say if the medication caused the babies death...or if there was something else there. Very brave to be taking on J & J, I don't know if I would be brave enough. it seems like J & J have been having a few problems with their manufacturing of late. I'm quite sure the regulator wouldn't like that...

Far out. The parents never looked at the news, newspaper or web for the next 4 months? Nice presumption OP. Do you know whether it was headlines news?



I don't know whether sueing the board members would make them happy. You seem to be pretty good in filling in the gaps with your presumptions, so perhaps you should answer your own question. I don't see it is about the money, I see it as hurting them in the only way they can be hurt which will perhaps make them more responsible in the future. Perhaps that is the parents aim, not to be 'filthy rich'.

you may say you are on the fence, but I don't believe you are.



totally agree tea bag

THis is what I was thinking...its a tragic outcome but I doubt anyone will "win" out of it

Oh well, maybe in the US they are way behind on technology and don't have websites where you can find all recently recalled products
But than again, maybe I'm the odd one out and I'm the only one who likes to stay up to date about children related products that have been recalled, to make sure my son isn't using any of these.




Getting money from J&J wont hurt them at all. Do you really think 50 million dollars or even 1 billion will send J&J broke??? I sincerely doubt it. Too many silly people on this world will still use J&J even after this case has finished.




Actually I am. I don't know all the facts (and never said I did) and that is why I am asking if it is at all possible that the parents might've made a mistake with the dosage? That they might've not seen the news, newspaper, internet etc for 4 months and therefore were completely unaware of the higher concentration?
If it is not the responsibility of the user to stay up to date about the products they use, how else can companies like J&J get the message across?

Or perhaps J&J is lying about the concentration of the ingredient being seriously harmful. Though I would doubt a large company would just make an official statement without a backup to prove it.
Or could it be that the shopowner had indeed not removed the faulty product in time? In that case, would J&J still be responsible if they did what was expected by them and sent out a recall?
Is there anything else that J&J could do within reason, to have prevented this death (if the courts decide they are indeed to blame)?

The Australian government has a website dedicated to product recalls. I visit it regularly as I for one do not watch TV anymore. Only watch ABC2 for kids.
Does anyone have suggestions of more ways that companies can get through to everyone using one of their products? Obviously existing technology (internet, google, email) doesn't suffice anymore. This is a genuine question by the way.
Maybe set up a national database of every person buying an over the counter medication?
Yet what would we need to do with the millions of electrical goods sold each week that can blow up, short circuit, etc?

It would require far more than double the normal dose on a single occaison to kill a child. I've seen kids who have sculled from bottles having more than 10 x the recommended dose per kg and have not required treatment, only observation. As a pp said, there is a very effective antidote to paracetemol poisoning which only had to be administered within 8 hours of ingestion. PAracetemol levels can be very easily measured from blood tests, and if the dose was high enough to kill a child would still be present 24 hours later. Even if you overdose on paracetemol it doesn't cause any effects to many hours, even the next day later, so the story of spitting up blood 1/2 an hour later doesn't make sense. Still, I'm sure we aren't being told all the facts in this story. Either way, very sad for the parents and I understand that feeling to hold someone responsible.

The sale of therapeutic items is not something taken lightly in Australia. It sounds as though J&J aren't being tightly enough regulated if they've had 24 product recalls in 2 years in the US. Something was clearly going very wrong in one of their manufacturing plants that oversaw most of the recalls. It's funny that PPs are focused on the recall and have little to say about the quality control issues that appear obvious. The manufacturer must be held accountable for products sold (within reason). Product recalls aren't the only mechanism for preventing deaths. This couple's loss shouldn't be written off as collateral damage. They've purchased a product expecting an outcome and the results were fatal for their son.

I haven't bought a baby food jar for some years, but didn't the instructions say to spoon the mixture into another bowl - and I am sure it was so you could spot foreign objects ... well I am sure that's what I read somewhere/was told 15 years ago.

I am not entirely 'up' on the American legal system, however in Australia, for a civil case like this one it does not have to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the fault caused the death. All they need to show is that on the balance of probabilities that the defect increased the likelihood of the death. Which is very clear frankly.

If this happened here you would jointly sue J&J and the shopkeeper. The amounts awarded would be reduced due to the parents contributory negligence. You would not be able to sue the company directors here - in fact I'm very surprised you can in America. It is the company at fault, not the employees. Remember a company is a separate legal entity - just like another person.

OP - I believe there are very few people like you who regularly visit websites dedicated to product recalls.

There are so many possibilities, not only with medications, but toys, cars (well with cars they contact you), lollies.

It is up to the manufacturers to ensure they provide a safe product 99.9% of the time. Unless you have purchases sign a waiver on purchase, or a promise to check recall websites, being sued is a realistic possibility.

What a heartless position.

Who cares if J&J followed recall protocols? It doesn't magically absolve a company of liability if they distributed a fatal batch of drugs.

If their drug caused a small child to die, then the company should pay. At least for punitive reasons. But this something a court is best placed to determine, not you.

But from your lack of sympathy I guess if it was your child, you'd just say "oh well, they did what was required. Money won't bring my child back".

Yeah right.

Yes I am unsympathetic and heartless. I completely agree. Spot on. I'm an analytical and logical person when I read about these kind of cases and usually my opinion is not what the majority expects it to be. Luckily we live in Australia

Yet to answer your question, had this happened to me than no, I wouldn't go after the money. As a Christian it would not sit right with me and I'm pretty sure it wont sit right with God either.

Anyhoo, I was asking what other ways can companies make sure that when an error occurs (s long as there are humans involved in the manufacturing of items, there will always be a risk of errors.) they reach all of their customers?
Do you have an answer?

I have also never said J&J isn't responsible. I do not believe they are solely responsible.
If you read carefully you should see that I acknowledge J&J made a mistake.
I am just thinking if this automatically means that they are the only one to blame?

I am also wondering why J&J issues an official statement saying the concentration of that ingredient wasn't high enough to cause serious harm, when the truth would be so easy to find out? As a biochemist I could measure the concentration quite easily if someone handed me a bottle out of the faulty batch of Tynelol.

To make a long story short, I do not believe the parents are completely without blame, I do not believe the shop where they bought the medicine is completely without blame, nor do I believe J&J to be completely without blame.

I think that if J&J did everything they could to prevent a child's death ie a recall, than the court/jury might not see them as being responsible.
You would think that if there were more ways they could contact all their customers, surely the US government would enforc J&J to do so.



That's why I am wondering if anyone could think of more ways a multinational company could reach all their customers immediately after they are aware of the fault. Yet noone seems to know.....

I'll be keeping an eye on this case out of professional curiosity. Not because I'm sympathetic either way

On top of everything else, I cannot believe you have said because "because I am a Christian". Now I seriously want to puke and have no interest in anything further you have to say.

You should be ashamed of yourself. My parents are born again Christians, and I was raised as a christian, and your views are abhorrent.

I agree that J and J are responsible and I would take legal action if it were my child. I don't it is about the money but more taking action against a company who's actions resulted in the death of their child.

I clicked on the story link, and if you scroll right down there are some very interesting comments, made by nurses, who seem to have read other versions of the article.

Comments that seem to show another picture.

I really think it pathetic when people hide their ignorance behind God and claim Christianity as some form of moral high ground whilst also maintaining a position that lacks social balance, compassion and generosity. You don't have access to the mind of God so cease with your proseletysing. I regard myself as an analytical person and find your rationale to be completely illogical.



Completely agree. I too am a xian and find your position revolting.

I really dont think you can even imagine what it is like to be in their situation or what your response would be. To even attempt to answer this makes you look like a fool. And I'm pretty sure that the scriptures dealing with people suing others are concerning Christians suing fellow believers and/or actually paying for an offence that has been committed in a way that is more than asked of them. Paul himself sought recourse within the legal system. In this case, the family didn't do anything wrong except administer a regular, OTC drug to their child.

The article doesn't give enough information on the extent to which the recalled product was dangerous, or what the childs medical history was etc. But if the product was recalled and would cause a reaction similar to the one that the child had, then J&J would be responsible.

The conclusions you jumped to regarding their reasons for pursuing a lawsuit really irritated me.You dont know anything about their personal situation, or how much financial damage they sustained just by seeking medical care for their child. If you've ever buried your own child you'll know that it costs lots of money too . For about four years I lived in a town about a 3 hour drive from where this happened. It is an economically depressed, fairly rural area and medical bills can be insanely high- a lot of people don't have medical insurance. Eg- it cost us $19000 when DD was born. However their lawsuit is relevant regardless of whether or not they have $. Also, in the town that we were in, a lot of people didn't watch television (out of personal conviction or a lack of reception) and internet was tediously slow so they may genuinely not have heard about the recall. I don't frequently visit websites to check that store-bought products haven't been recalled :S. All I'm saying is that you have no idea...but you feel that its okay to doubt their version of events, which is basically calling them liars. Really not cool.

Perhaps the parents feel that by suing the company their situation will have a higher profile and will raise awareness about the potential dangers of things like this occurring again. Perhaps they feel that the company has a history of sub-standard product control and that as it has resulted in the death of their child, they feel that holding the company accountable is the right thing to do. I find it so odd that you feel that its okay to judge other peoples heart motives

I just read some of them - some are suggesting they should have been giving him the infant one, not the children's, due to his age?

Someone also pointed out that they wouldn't have been the only parents that have used this recalled medicine on their child - so why haven't others been affected?

When I first read this, I wondered if Tynelol contained aspirin, and if the child suffered from Reye's Syndrome - in regards to the liver being affected.
I guess it's also possible they gave him other medication - such as aspirin or teething gel? Or perhaps he had an undiagnosed metabolic disorder or something else?

I didn't read if they had tested the bottle - surely this should give them an indication if it could have contributed to the poor child's death.

Unless we know all the details, we can't really comment, can we.

A company does not lose all responsibility at the issue of a recall. Otherwise they could be as shoddy as they like in the interests of maximising profits, knowing they can always cover their a*se by issuing recalls in the event of a mishap. If they stuffed up they should wear the blame, even if they did write individual letters to everyone on some hypothetical register.

I find your question odd. Isn't it fairly obvious that there would be no way for the sort of product consumer tracking system you are talking about to be workable? And even if there was a register there is every chance the product has been sold on, stolen, lost, misplaced etc. Recalls are so fallible it's not funny. I see no reason why issuing one would be any sort of defense, other than to show there is no malicious intent. Neglect can easily happen without malicious intent.

That's assuming the death was as a result of the product - I assume that's what the court case will be about.

It all seems quite odd, the description of the symptoms and death would not be what you would typically be expecting in this case and I would also assume that a tox screen was done as standard in an 'unexpected' death such as this. The tox screen would have defined the amount of paracetamol in the blood and you could backtrack that using pharmacokinetics to the solution delivered. I'm not saying that the product did not cause the death as I have no idea of the details however I think it quite odd that the symptoms/timing does not really add up and nothing was obviously out of the ordinary in the tox screen as the coroner did not note it (according to press reports, I don't know the actual details).

Also J&J have been quite bold in the public statements and claims. Companies would not do this unless they have ascertained this without a doubt. Again, not saying they are right, I have no clue but when these things happen companies swing into action VERY quickly to truely ascertain risk due to the potential of being sued and need to use data/facts in this regard with regulators especially in the event of a pharma recall.

I agree with this.



And this.



Oh yeah, the parents want a fast buck, it will bring them happiness... cos that's what it's ALL about.

I can only speak for myself but suing isn't about the monetary value. When it is a corporation/system and there is no one person who can be charged and sentenced with murder so it is another way to seek TOTAL justice (and by that I mean in which is legally obtainable). Another aspect is how this death affects the family, there will be losses of money and extra bills. Circumstances change to what living life would have been like if the deceased were still alive. In this case it wouldn't be unrealistic for the parents to break down and not be able to function a 'normal life' and jobs and incomes may be lost etc, follow me?

Why do people instantly think when suing for compensation, the person who is seeking the damages is ONLY in it for the money? It is a very vile train of thought and it is highly insulting to those affected.

I think there is a fundamental lack of essential information to reach any informed conclusion at the moment. Too many unkowns, too many 'what ifs'. Theoretically, the only way you're going to get that information, is in the trial... and even that is limited by the laws of evidence and the like.

eta and I'm not sure how 'I'm a Christian therefore' makes the OP's point of view on this particular topic, any more relevant than anyone else's.

Doesn't god like his 10%, according to some.

If J & J are found responsible by a jury, then they have to wear that responsibility! Was there a coronial inquest?

It was front page and headline news. I recall the stories. I also have friends in the States and Canada sending out warnings just in case we got the product here.

That aside, I agree with the PP we won't know for sure until the trial. IMHO if a standard dose wouldn't have been fatal then no, it's the parent's fault for not following directions and adding that 'little bit extra'. If a standard dose was fatal then definately - if not for what they've done to ensure nothing like this happens again.

Only the trial will tell.

I refuse to buy any of j&j product. Scientist have concluded that the ingredients in j&j talc tenfold the chance of Ovarian Cancer.