Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

highline.huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 145 posts

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#21

Post by deelowe »

cs702 wrote: post #13

"Tragic" is the only word that does justice to the events described by this article. The most interesting aspect of the story for me is how the company's culture has changed for the worst over time. Johnson & Johnson was started and for many decades was run by sincerely idealistic do-no-evil entrepreneurs, who wanted to focus on "patients first and profits last"... but now this business is run by executives who seem…

In a typical corporation, psycopaths are the cream that rises to the top. I've seen it happen time and time again.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#22

Post by Someone1234 »

aggie wrote: post #16
LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

Nope, they really don't.

The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make a good case to each individual so they make the right choice.

If you think the first amendment is an important right in the US, then the right to not have complex chemicals and or living organisms injected into your body should be an even higher right (since you're entrusting your very health on the state).

I fully support vaccines and we are CHOOSING to vaccinate our kid. I understand herd immunity, but your fear doesn't trump other people's individual rights.

I dislike both anti-vaxxers AND forced-vaxxers. One is scientifically ignorant and the other is morally bankrupt. Pick your poison I guess.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#23

Post by chaosphere2112 »

sp332 wrote: post #19
aggie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.

The government has had this authority since 1905 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts); there's no "giving them" this power, they've had it for over 100 years.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#24

Post by grotsnot »

sp332 wrote: post #19
aggie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.

That's the sort of tragedy-of-the-commons style fault that is prohibitively difficult to prove is due to a specific individual. Governments exist to solve such coordination problems.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#25

Post by thehoff »

danso wrote: post #18
thehoff wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following through the links to Dollars for Docs: https://projects.propublica.org/d4d-archive/companies/johnso... How is this legal? I'm ignorant of the details but for instance, if you click on California and look at Speaking, top of the list doc got $86,550!

It's legal in the way that celebrity/professional endorsement is legal in any other field. It's not inherently wrong, and you would expect that an ostensibly effective product would be touted by respected professionals. And just to be clear, when speaking for the product, the doctors generally must stick to the company's slides and official talking points -- though the doctors have final say over what they present [1…

Okay that makes sense but can't one argue that when I see Michael Jordan endorsing a product I can assume that most people know that he is being paid for it. Not to mention my health isn't on the line for the product he is endorsing.

When I get a prescription from a doctor I have no idea whether or not he is getting something out of it. Whether it be speaking fees, a new pen, lunches, or whatever. Legal or not. I just trust that that doc is acting in my best interest.

And thank you for the work on the Dollars for Docs project. I for one am appreciative of this find.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#26

Post by valarauca1 »

sp332 wrote: post #19
aggie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

It could still be a civil suit - if someone actually got sick because you weren't vaccinated, they could sue you for damages. Also, once you give the government the authority to require people to be injected, they will probably start expanding it in various directions. That's really not a power I want to give to them.

Appeal to fear is a logical fallacy not a rational argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#27

Post by jschwartzi »

aggie wrote: post #16
LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

I would like to point out that, in practice, we have eradicated Polio, and Smallpox, both of which are terrifying diseases. Also, thanks to vaccination of the adult populace you never hear about babies dying from Pertussis. There are other diseases that are similarly rare now but that used to kill or deform people before vaccinations became a part of public health policy.

So there are some good reasons why I think you're right.

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#28

Post by LordKano »

Retra wrote: post #17
LordKano wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The anti-vaxxers would have a point even if J&J wasn't involved in shady activity. I am not an anti-vaxxer. I was vaccinated. I had my children vaccinated. I just hold the position that the power of the state shouldn't be used to compel people to inject substances into their bodies, even if we think we have a good reason for doing it. I'm not looking to delve too deeply into the politics of it but there are good reas…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things, I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there. Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object. In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision, and so the onus is on the anti-vaxxer to sho…

Given that the whole purpose of a state is to compel people to do things

I'd argue that the purpose of the state is to prevent people from doing certain things. To illustrate, most of our laws are "Thou shall not..." versus "Thou must..." to punish "bad" behavior instead of compel "good" behavior.

I'm wondering what basis you have for drawing the line there.

Personal autonomy. Your body, your choice.

Or why a simple waiver process wouldn't be sufficient to handle those who object.

Because a waiver process implies that it's the government's choice and not the individual's.

In general, I would argue that a state has the authority to compel someone into doing anything that has been sufficiently demonstrated to be a good decision

Can the state compel everyone to be a vegan unless they can show proof of a medical condition that would make it unworkable?

Re: Johnson and Johnson, America’s Most Admired Lawbreaker

#29

Post by ceejayoz »

Someone1234 wrote: post #22
aggie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccination is not an onerous requirement and there is very good reason to believe it is beneficial to public health when widely administered . If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice.

> If you want to reject it on principle alone, you'll have to address why your liberty in principle is more important than my health concern in practice. Nope, they really don't. The default should not be for the state to force someone to inject a substance into their body, and if they refuse or raise concern, that it is then on them to explain/justify why NOT. The state should justify why they're doing it, and make…

I'm fine with "you can't force me to get vaccinated" if it includes an acceptance of civil liability should you be part of an outbreak of vaccine-preventable disease.
Post reply on HN