A lot of drugs have severe side effects. And of course, if a drug is popular enough, there always will be a couple of extremely severe cases.
Does it mean that those drugs are bad? Does it mean that the recovery of millions of patients is outweighted by one where the doctor probably shouldn't have prescribed it in the first place because the patient was already predisposed to depression or depressed in the first place?
Your argument sounds like a false dichotomy to me. We can have drugs with potentially bad side effects and make efforts to make sure they're not incorrectly prescribed.
I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted.
Honestly, the article could be written about someone doing a marketing campaign for facebook and then hearing about a teenager committing suicide due to facebook. We would all find that absurd, but it is functionally equivalent here. Facebook has been sued for the suicide of teenagers, just like the drug company.
What I find very disturbing in US, that I haven't seen in France for example is marketing push (including TV ads) for prescription drugs.
Is it something people do, go to their doctors and say "that drugs looks great because I've seen it on TV/some online quiz told me I need it, please write me a prescription"?
I saw nothing in the article that indicated the drug discussed was incorrectly prescribed or promoted.
You don't think presenting a questionnaire and having every answer being the drug in question, regardless of the choices made, at the very least hints at it being incorrectly promoted?
The article also mentioned nothing about the drug being sold on the website either. I presume they must have had to go to a doctor to get a prescription which they would then take to a pharmacy to get the drug... so going to the doctor and saying "I took this questionnaire and it said I have X. I need drug Y" means there are problems elsewhere in the system.
I agree, but it's perfectly valid to hold it against a company to exploit those problems in the system for profit, if this goes at a cost of human life.
(The problem likely being that doctors don't want to argue with their patients too much)
Does it mean that those drugs are bad? Does it mean that the recovery of millions of patients is outweighted by one where the doctor probably shouldn't have prescribed it in the first place because the patient was already predisposed to depression or depressed in the first place?