The newspaper is a great starting place for ideas.

Even just glancing through the front page articles, there's bound to be at least one that touches upon something easy to talk about.  Today, it's an article in The Wall Street Journal about where the responsibility for a person's prescription drug use lies.  The article, by Amy Merrick, first talks about an incident in which a woman suspected of abusing painkillers hit two people at the side of the road, killing one and severely injuring the second.  Now, let me ask you: who is responsible for this unfortunate accident?

According to the lawsuit filed Mr. Martinez (the injured man), his family and the family of the deceased (Mr. Sanchez), Wall Mart is responsible.  Because the woman (Patricia Copening) bought her painkillers from their pharmacy, it is they who should be responsible for the accident.

At this point, I'm thinking something along the lines of, "WTF?"  And, the article goes on to say that this is "part of a broader movement under way to place more responsibility for patients' prescription-drug use on pharmacies."  Do you know what I think?  I think that Wall Mart is capable of paying much more in damages than Ms. Copening.  You do the math.



The question of who is at fault is a tricky one, I admit.  I am currently writing a long article on Internet addiction, and in the process I have learned quite a bit about addiction in general.  It is very easy to hold the addict responsible for their own behavior, but in all practicality they cannot control that behavior.  For whatever reason, one of the very defining features of an 'addiction' is that very lack of control.  Now, how can you hold someone who is not in control of their actions accountable for those very actions?

So, if the addict themselves is not accountable, who is?  First of all, I don't think that the addict should be held blameless for what they have done: the fact remains that, impaired or not, their decisions led them to whatever problems they have.  Wall Mart did not kill Mr. Sanchez and would Mr. Martinez: Ms. Copening did.  The question is, could Wall Mart have recognized based on Ms. Copening's purchasing habits (the previous year she bought 4,500 doses of painkillers) that she had a problem?  Should they then have refused to sell to her?  I don't know: I don't have all the information.  Were there other opportunities for who knows how many others to step in and help her?  Probably.  As I said, I don't have all the information.

Getting farther towards the root of the problem, in accidents such as this we of the United States have come to want two things: one, someone to blame, and two, gross compensation for all losses.  Let's start with the blame game: is it a good thing?  I by and large think that it is not: it encourages people to think that it is one person or entity that is solely responsible for some unfortunate event.  In the above example, if we trace what happened, there are multiple people involved who made mistakes leading to the accident.  If Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Martinez had been more vigilant, or if they had moved the truck to a safer place to change the flat tire, or if any amount of preventative maintenance on the van Mr. Sanchez was driving prevented that flat tire, this accident may not have happened.  If Ms. Copening had recognized and sought help for a painkiller addiction, if someone else had done this for her, if Wall Mart had not sold her the painkillers, the accident might not have happened.  And, any amount of chance could have prevented it: if either party had taken a different route that day, if the tire hadn't gone flat, if Ms. Copening had swerved the other direction, if either one of them had been hit by a comet the week before...this list is endless.  Are we going to say that the series of decisions made by multiple parties combined with the unforeseeable circumstance boils down to one single mistake?

And, I'm sure all of you have heard the term "shit happens".  While all of us are more than happy to reap the rewards of good fortune, why is it someone else's job to compensate us for losses due to circumstance?   Now, I am not trying to say "shit happens, get over it" to the families of the deceased and injured in the above case.  In cases such as this, I think that the individual or group that contributed most to the outcome of the accident (that is, Ms. Copening) should be the one(s) to compensate those who were injured.  And none of this multi-million dollar punitive damages crap: what was the total cost of medical treatment and lost revenue?  That should be it.  I'm sorry, but no amount of money will bring Mr. Sanchez back: while there may be damages if he had dependents that now have no support or income, I don't think that they should receive money just because he is dead.  Cost of funeral, burial, etc., yes.  Lost revenue, yes.  Miscellaneous other damages, yes.  Blood money?  No.

Now, that might be a hefty sum for poor Ms. Copening.  If she can't pay it, should the injured families be SOL?  You can see why they turned to Wall Mart, which can actually afford to pay the damages.  But, are they really responsible for those damages?  It really is tricky: we have two main parties affected (Ms. Copening and those she hit), with a web of responsibility for the actions of each extending from there.  You have then the total damage caused.  Ideally, each party that owed any amount of responsibility to the outcome of the accident (Ms. Copening's grandparents for producing her parents, why not) would shoulder their share of the burden.  But, that's not possible.

For the take-home message, if something bad happens don't think that or act like it is the world that has wronged you.  I mean, stuff just happens sometimes.  Move on.  Accept the bad stuff as graciously as you accept the good stuff in your life.  And most importantly, make yourself responsible for your life and happiness.  It is not someone else's job to prop you up every time something bad happens.  True friends and family do, of course, but not out of obligation.  It is still your job to live your life, including all the curveballs that may be thrown at you.  I mean, EVERYONE has shit they have to deal with.  That's ok, really.

I hope that Mr. Martinez, his family and the family of Mr. Sanchez are able to pick up and move on to a happier future.  I hope Ms. Copening gets help for her problem.  I do sympathize with the sadness that each must feel.  I just do not think that any righteous indignation on anyone's part is ever appropriate in these situations.  I don't think throwing blame around is either.  If everyone could pick up and move on, that would be ideal.  But I've ranted enough for now.

On a side note, I've decided to add something to the layout of the site with each new post (at least, until it's something more than a ghost town).  I wonder what today's addition will be?