The manager of an investing firm tells all the financial advisers working for him about an amazing opportunity in an emerging market for which he holds a direct interest. He is obviously biased as to his opinion but he minimizes the investor risk and presents the information in a way as to attempt to sway others to his opinion. Later that week after all of the brokers have pushed their clients to this new option the stock goes south and the clients take losses as the manager rakes in huge profits.
Even if the information the manager passes along to his brokers is for the most part true the manager should have considered the potential consequences of his discourse. Free speech that is dangerous is not protected under the constitution.
A pharmaceutical representative promotes his product in a way to make it seem not only superior to that of his competitors but also safer for the patients who are taking it. The representative is clearly presenting a biased opinion as he directly benefits from the products utilization but he is able to convince the physician to increase the amount of patients he gives it to.
A week later one of the patients whom the physician put on this medication as a result of the intentionally dishonest product detail experiences a severe adverse event and their kidneys shut down. The physician is surprised to find that this is a rare but serious adverse event associated with this product but it was never mentioned by the representative. More troubling is that the competitors’ product he normally would have chosen for the patient has shown in clinical trials to actually be protective against this type of event. Now the physician is facing a lawsuit by the patient who will know require dialysis the rest of their life.
Even though the pharmaceutical reps detail was for the most part true their intentional deception as to the products safety along with the exclusion of this possible side effect was dangerous and financially motivated. As before, speech such as this is not protected by the first amendment because it can directly lead to the intentional or unintentional harm of another person which infringes of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Even if the information the manager passes along to his brokers is for the most part true the manager should have considered the potential consequences of his discourse. Free speech that is dangerous is not protected under the constitution.
A pharmaceutical representative promotes his product in a way to make it seem not only superior to that of his competitors but also safer for the patients who are taking it. The representative is clearly presenting a biased opinion as he directly benefits from the products utilization but he is able to convince the physician to increase the amount of patients he gives it to.
A week later one of the patients whom the physician put on this medication as a result of the intentionally dishonest product detail experiences a severe adverse event and their kidneys shut down. The physician is surprised to find that this is a rare but serious adverse event associated with this product but it was never mentioned by the representative. More troubling is that the competitors’ product he normally would have chosen for the patient has shown in clinical trials to actually be protective against this type of event. Now the physician is facing a lawsuit by the patient who will know require dialysis the rest of their life.
Even though the pharmaceutical reps detail was for the most part true their intentional deception as to the products safety along with the exclusion of this possible side effect was dangerous and financially motivated. As before, speech such as this is not protected by the first amendment because it can directly lead to the intentional or unintentional harm of another person which infringes of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Free Speech
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire