The Johnson & Johnson's Tylenol Controversies
THE TYLENOL OVERDOSE CONTROVERSY CONTD...
Slowly, people became aware that though safe in proper doses, Tylenol could be dangerous even in a little overdose. Even twice the prescribed dose could damage the liver. Unfortunately, overdoses could happen due to many reasons. For children, Tylenol came in kid-pleasing flavors and was marked as a "SAFE" alternative to Aspirin. As children liked the flavor, they could just take another dose. It was also found that in many cases, one parent was not aware that the other had given the dose, and accidentally gave a second dose. Also, parents were not aware about the strengths and doses of Tylenol line of products. Acetaminophen was also harmful to people with liver problems, if taken along with alcohol and certain other medicines or on an empty stomach. |
However, Tylenol was marketed with the ad line "Nothing’s Safer." The
required warning labels as per the US Food and Drug Administration rules
only stated alcohol-related risks. Some health practitioners felt that
stronger warnings against overdoses were very important.
According to analysts, inspite of the bad publicity and legal
settlements, which cost the company millions of dollars, J&J refused to
put explicit warnings on its Tylenol labels. The company had only made
just cosmetic changes on the warning label. After the Keele case, J&J
added to the extra strength package: "Not for use for children." In
1994, after Benedi’s case, it added a warning about using any pain
reliever after a drink. Analysts said that J&J resisted writing the kind
of label that would really alert people about the dangers of taking
overdoses. For example, according to J&J it resisted warning customers
about possible liver failure because the company felt that "organ
specific" warnings would confuse people. Similarly, the company resisted
warning about the risk of death to avoid suicides: If people knew that
acetaminophen was potentially deadly, they might use it for suicide. In
response to the studies revealing Tylenol-related liver damages, J&J
advised its sales representatives not to discuss the issue with the
doctors. Rather than taking some concrete measures to prevent patients
from taking overdoses, J&J recommended that the patients should keep a
log for doses taken. The recommendation was made in a patient education
brochure given to the doctors. According to media reports, at least 100
suits had been filed against J&J over acetaminophen poisonings between
1990 and 1997. In four cases, the company reportedly made out-of-court
settlements under agreements that required the plaintiffs to maintain
silence about the terms. Analysts felt that the huge profits were the
main reason behind J&J’s reluctance to make people aware of Tylenol’s
side effects. Wall Street analysts estimated J&J’s revenue for Tylenol
at $1.3 billion a year in 1996. The fact that acetaminophen was
available at about half the price suggested that J&J’s profit margin was
very high. J&J spent a major part of this profit to strengthen Tylenol’s
image. According to Advertising Age, the company’s domestic ad budget
for Tylenol was $250 million in 1997, more than Coca-Cola spent on Coke.
Analysts remarked that J&J’s response to the overdose issue was in steep
contrast to its quick and sincere efforts in 1982. Burke had taken
personal responsibility for the public’s safety. The American
Association of Poison Control Centers reported about 100 deaths a year
from acetaminophen. This figure seemed to be understated since hospitals
were not required to report such cases.
An article published in 1997 commented on the alternatives available to
Ralph Larsen , J&J’s new CEO, "He can rewrite the label, putting on it
the verbal equivalent of a skull and crossbones. Or he can go on paying
off victims, and hope for the best. Which is the moral choice? Which, in
the long run, is the best business decision?"
Advertisement...