Hypotension is a characteristic of these drugs in addition to liver cirrhosis(because of high levels of toxicity) and urinary retention.Painfree was regarded as promising because it had some advantages over other brands of morphinomimetics,namely;liver problem was considerably managed, no sign of tetramoraide syndrome was found and it's effectiveness in obliterating pain was instant and exceptional, though hypotension could not be dealt with(and this was not conveyed to the consumers aka patients).
In1993, 17% of the patients showed signs of orthostatic hypotension.1 Evidence suggested that Normoramide was the cause. A team led by Roland Peterson had worked tirelessly at eradicating the fatal liver problem but during the course of improving the drug, it was established that hypotension could not be dealt with.
Painfree indisputably was a significant breakthrough especially considering the miraculous pain relief it provided, and appeared to be potential 'commercial blockbuster'. However, orthostatic hypertension could not be obliterated (as it was conveyed to the prospect consumers) and to this extent, it can be alleged that the company misled the consumers. In addition, the 'innovation' in the drug becomes questionable.
The management omitted some very pertine...
In addition, the 'innovation' in the drug becomes questionable.
Managerial errors and the non-disclosure policy.
The management omitted some very pertinent facts about the drug, which if they were known would have affected consumption decision of the patients. The instances of non-disclosure can be enumerated as follows.
a) In 93, out of the patients tested with the drug 17% exhibited hypotension.2 The management sought an alteration of guidelines and after it was affected, these cases were written off as 'occurrences prior to alteration" thus were disregarded. It must be noted that there was no alteration in the chemical composition of the drug and its medicinal effects would still be the same. The consequences of the omission of this fact would have serious consequences. Technically, it did not amount to any violation, but it was non-disclosure of the side effects of the drug, fearing negative impact on potential sales. However, the 'potency in healing' was highlighted and celebrated-misleading prospective clients.
b) Orthostatic hypotension was an established side effect sans doubt and it was in the knowledge of the management. A warning was added to the packages "to avoid physical activity and increased stress during treatment."3 This warning was not highlighted in the promotional material and was not given the due weightage in the package. Indications about hypotension were absent altogether, atleast initially.
c)During the promotion of the drug doctors were informed about liver cirrhosis(which had been combated and posed no threat) but hypotension as a side effect was not given the due weightage,neither was the incidence of it's occurrence during the