At random 6/29

Sunday, June 29, 2003

Do you remember, a few months ago, news of the jury which awarded a woman multiple billions of dollars (no, not millions; billions) because she'd been smoking cigarettes for umpteen years and had finally, finally managed to contract lung cancer? At first hearing, I thought it was a Saturday Night Live routine. Later, I saw it confirmed in the newspaper. And I didn't know what to think. My first reaction was simply to laugh. Was I laughing at the sheer outrageousness of the sum? It put her windfall amount of dollars up there with the profits raked in yearly by the oil corporations. Or was I laughing at the transparently vengeful attitude of the jury? Maybe they, too, had lost relatives to lung cancer. Or maybe they'd only recently given up smoking and were just plain ornery. I didn't know. But I did have strong feelings about the woman who was bringing the suit against the tobacco company. Had she not passed second grade? Was she illiterate? Could she not read the warning on the outside edge of the cigarette pack? And it's not the same warning it was in its earlier incarnations: "The Surgeon General has determined that smoking may cause smelly window drapes or a bothersome cough." No, the recent warnings lay it all on the table.. And surely she'd heard since she was younger all the rumors of the damage smoking can do? Caveat emptor is Latin for "buyer beware," and that's a nice warning to have attached to a product about which there's not much information, like beef from a cow which was exposed to "Mad Cow Disease." But should a tobacco company be held liable for selling to buyers who know, or should know, the possible consequences? No. I've been a diabetic since I was 18. At that time my physician took me aside and carefully explained to me what would happen to my health if I continued to eat candy and pie and, when I got a little older, alcohol. I'd been an indiscreet gobbler of Hershey bars and Charleston Chew and Good 'n' Plenty, but I thought I could give those up. The following year, however, I started college and joined a fraternity. Need I say more? The danger with the disease diabetes is that there's no immediate consequences of stupid eating habits. (I'm surprised that I got away with it for so long.) But five years ago, I "suddenly" began having big problems with my feet, and soon I had to have my right leg sawed off. I wanted to kick myself, and would have, if by doing so I wouldn't have fallen on my derriere. Whom could I sue? The candy companies? No, I'd been told countless times what would happen if I ate candy and other sweets, or drank alcohol. I suppose I could have sued the physician who prescribed for me the antibiotic gentomycin, which killed the balance mechanism in my inner ear. But he was only doing what he thought the right thing. It wasn't carelessness, I think. No, I've taken full responsibility for my errors. Now, I hear there's a move to sue fast-food franchises for the national fat epidemic, especially among youngsters. My only question is, "Who's forcing Quarter-Pounders down the customers‚ throats?" Isn't there information called "nutrition facts" available to each customer that would warn him that if he keeps eating here he‚s going to turn into a "lard-bucket first class?" The American legal system (or, more precisely, juries) is making it possible for us to assume no responsibility whatever for our behavior. Maybe the Latin should be changed to read: Caveat vendor, or, Seller beware. Dr. Nash still fondly recalls the taste of Charleston Chews.

To Read More
Subscribe Sign In
Continue reading with a subscription
Subscription options