Customer Reviews

The Power to Harm: Mind, Medicine, and Murder on Trial

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

With the lawsuit mania that exists today, it's not unusual to find big corporations dragged into lawsuits for no other reason than their deep pockets. Lawyers go to extreme lengths to assign fault for even the most tangential involvement. A casual observer to the lawsuit covered in "The Power to Harm" might perceive it as just another baseless attempt of going after the guy with the most money. After all, how could anyone blame a drug for causing someone to shoot twenty coworkers? If you read this book, you'll know the answer.

John Cornwell covers the behind-the-scene details of the trial with great skill and frugality. Nothing is wasted. The facts concerning the drug Prozac are fascinating. I'm truly amazed that the drug ever received FDA approval. Prozac is currently being sold in over seventy countries. If you are taking this drug or are considering taking it, please read this book.

This is a first rate legal thriller where the story and characters are real, and so too are the victims.

The author makes a complicated tale understandable and very very interesting. You couldn't ask for a better introduction to issues like the psychological drug approval process, 'the drug made me do it' thinking, and free will vs. brain chemistry determinism vs. community, company and co-worker responsibility. Very well written and very fair-minded!

Cornwell leads the reader through an incredible series of events. He holds a mirror to bosses who don't notice or are too self possessed to care. He shows bureaucrats that fail to act responsibly. Describes a chemical company that is apparently without a conscience and medicos that are hindered by a system. Lawyers cut a deal, that in popular parlance is intended to deliver a win-win solution to the chagrin of the trial judge. And the families who grieve, a son that's pilloried and the reader left to wonder about mass killers and what really gets them started. A must for HR managers, bureaucrats, medicos and lawyers and anyone who cares about others

Interesting court case. Not very well explained. Enough to get the crux of the argument but not presented in a very, skillful, well-written manner. A better writer and editor could have produced a much more interesting read.

However, some interesting insights do get raised about how corporations large and small abuse their employees and the courts. Shows some of the clear flaws in the so-called American justice system and how those with enough cash can influence those with high self-interest and low morals.

As for some of the supposed commentary below the comments by the goof who entitles his diatribe the Establishment just show how narrow minded and ignorant some folks are, when commenting about others they disagree with but don't have a solid rationale to critique. Buddy has spent too much time watching what passes for entertainment on television these days or reading The National Enquirer, both which are as credible as his uninformed, snide comments.

I am no Scientologist and I'm no fool, however comments from buddy indicate that he falls into the latter camp, which is a charitable description of someone who thinks they are a wit but is only half right.

Every book you are forced to read tends to give you a negative outlook but all in all I learned a different side to Prozac

The Prozac litigation was an interesting case where the law and science never met, as far as the plaintiffs and some of the media were concerned. The author writes with a British bias concerning the American legal system, and this shows in a lack of understanding of what was going on. This trial was about medicine and the law, and the author seems to understand neither. He poo-poos the state of scientific knowledge about how antidepressants work on the brain ("surely a mere chemical couldn't do THAT") but accepts without thinking challenge that a chemical could make a human being murder another. That the book is very poorly written is shown in the lack of depth of the interviews, and the facts. The author is very unkind in his physical descriptions of the participants (nice though, that his fact checker let him subtract 10 years from one's age) and their legal skills. In fact, the only lawyer he singles out was the poorest lawyer in the trial, hands down. A better account could and should have been written. The author has a few preconceived notions to peddle and that it all. Jonathan Harr could have written this better. Speaking of which, if you liked the Judge in A Civil Action, you'll love the judge in this case-- small time with a conpiracy theorist leaning, and less going for him that Harr's federal judge.

This case would be a good test for central casting. The author has already cast Nick Nolte as John McGoldrick, one of the lead lawyers for Lilly. Kevin Spacey might be a better pick. Fred McMurray is unfortunately passed away, or he would be a terrific Ed Stopher. Joe Freeman should be played by the guy who is "Perry White" on Superman and who was the prosecutor on "My Cousin Vinny." Paul Smith shall be played by Snuffy Smith, although he is a fictional character. Nancy Zettler should be played by Roseanne Barr.Judge Potter could be played by "Mister Hart" from Paper Chase, or maybe Jack Nicholson, in a stretch. (Think The Shining) The book fails to mention the contributions of many young associates toiling in and around the courtroom.

It figures that Emilio below only bought the paperback. He doesn't disclose his agenda (scientologist, or just someone who NEEDS a shrink) but he obviously has no idea what he is talking about. If Emilio lives near you watch out, because he may go postal or try to poison the water supply. (He probably moved his lips while reading the book, and he clearly needed help typing his review). Take a pill Emilio. Cornwell hasn't a clue. Oh yea, it is all a conspiracy.