Truthfully, this movie didn't deserve only one star, it was well made and well acted. In fact, if they didn't promote it as based on a true story then I would have likely given it at least seven stars. However, they did call it true, which is just not the case - this story is simply more Hollywood Hype. As someone who was, and still is, involved in the healthcare industry at the time I can point out the following facts:
1- The safety needle as shown in the film is a retraction model. In other words most punctures in a healthcare setting happen when the healthcare provider attempts to re-cap the needle after use, or by handling the syringe until you could break off the needle into an approved safety container. However, in the movie the nurse pricks herself as a result of trying to administer an injection to an unruly patient. In such a case even the safety needle would not have prevented the nurse in the movie from puncturing herself.
2 - It's also worth pointing out that an equal number of healthcare accidents resulting in infection from broken skin occur in the laboratory due to the in-hand breakage of a glass test tubes, which subsequently cut the hands of the laboratorians and infects them. The safety needle does nothing to protect these healthcare accidents either. In fact, there is a company (Greiner) that sells only plastic test tubes but glass test tubes are still the majority of test tubes used in healthcare today. So where's Hollywood's outrage about this?
3 - I was around at the time this movie took place and can unequivocally tell you that since 1984 every hospital was searching for a better, safer needle. The liability aspects of AIDS alone drove this movement. In fact there were a number of safety needles available at the time that were in use and were invented by a number of different people,So, basically this movie was about some slick sleazy law firm that forced a hospital buying group to buy someones particular safety needle design over someone else's design; thus giving that particular inventor a corner on the market.
4 - Why were safety needles not in use by the group already? You can thank Gov't healthcare reform for that. When the Clintons tried to reform healthcare and failed, they did succeed at forcing the industry to reform itself. From this grew hospital buying groups, which hospitals would join in order to have greater purchasing power by making group purchases as opposed to a single hospital making the purchase. These bulk purchases would have high-quantity discounts, thus reducing the cost of the item and reducing the cost of healthcare as the Gov't was forcing them to do. The problem is that high quantity purchases resulted in a large stock of inventory that had to be depleted before you could buy anything new (like safety needles). However, you don't see Hollywood making mention in this movie about how their favorite Democratic President was responsible for delaying the use of safety needles in hospitals; or how the new social healthcare law pushed by our current President will create even more situations like the one in this movie.
5 - Lastly, the stereotypes of this movie are sickening. First they showed a Hospital Purchasing Agent bureaucrat instructing the attorney not to show the safety needle to his nurses because they would want it. A few problems here, first nurses aren't the only people that get infected from these accidents (in fact of all healthcare workers they are in the minority). Second the nurses would have already known about safety needles, as I stated above, there were an abundance of them from a slew of different manufacturers. I work with Hospital Purchasing Agents and they are real A-holes, but they would never say what this guy said in the movie.
6 - When they show the buying group conference (the one that costs $25,000 to attend) they make it look like an insider meeting attended by the rich blue-bloods. I've attended these trade shows and they are nothing of the type. Mostly they take place in a large open conference center with a crowd of booths filled with working people trying to make a living. The crowd of booths would also have multiple manufacturers selling a diverse line of products, including multiple types of safety needles from multiple manufacturers. The fact being that there was no shortage of safety needles at these shows and they were offered from a diverse set of different manufacturers.
Like I said, if this movie wasn't advertised as "true' I probably would have liked it. However, I couldn't in good conscience allow them to perpetrate this lie without speaking up. If you doubt me, think to yourself, when was the last time a lawyer (especially an ambulance chaser) really did something that was not for their own personal gain?
1- The safety needle as shown in the film is a retraction model. In other words most punctures in a healthcare setting happen when the healthcare provider attempts to re-cap the needle after use, or by handling the syringe until you could break off the needle into an approved safety container. However, in the movie the nurse pricks herself as a result of trying to administer an injection to an unruly patient. In such a case even the safety needle would not have prevented the nurse in the movie from puncturing herself.
2 - It's also worth pointing out that an equal number of healthcare accidents resulting in infection from broken skin occur in the laboratory due to the in-hand breakage of a glass test tubes, which subsequently cut the hands of the laboratorians and infects them. The safety needle does nothing to protect these healthcare accidents either. In fact, there is a company (Greiner) that sells only plastic test tubes but glass test tubes are still the majority of test tubes used in healthcare today. So where's Hollywood's outrage about this?
3 - I was around at the time this movie took place and can unequivocally tell you that since 1984 every hospital was searching for a better, safer needle. The liability aspects of AIDS alone drove this movement. In fact there were a number of safety needles available at the time that were in use and were invented by a number of different people,So, basically this movie was about some slick sleazy law firm that forced a hospital buying group to buy someones particular safety needle design over someone else's design; thus giving that particular inventor a corner on the market.
4 - Why were safety needles not in use by the group already? You can thank Gov't healthcare reform for that. When the Clintons tried to reform healthcare and failed, they did succeed at forcing the industry to reform itself. From this grew hospital buying groups, which hospitals would join in order to have greater purchasing power by making group purchases as opposed to a single hospital making the purchase. These bulk purchases would have high-quantity discounts, thus reducing the cost of the item and reducing the cost of healthcare as the Gov't was forcing them to do. The problem is that high quantity purchases resulted in a large stock of inventory that had to be depleted before you could buy anything new (like safety needles). However, you don't see Hollywood making mention in this movie about how their favorite Democratic President was responsible for delaying the use of safety needles in hospitals; or how the new social healthcare law pushed by our current President will create even more situations like the one in this movie.
5 - Lastly, the stereotypes of this movie are sickening. First they showed a Hospital Purchasing Agent bureaucrat instructing the attorney not to show the safety needle to his nurses because they would want it. A few problems here, first nurses aren't the only people that get infected from these accidents (in fact of all healthcare workers they are in the minority). Second the nurses would have already known about safety needles, as I stated above, there were an abundance of them from a slew of different manufacturers. I work with Hospital Purchasing Agents and they are real A-holes, but they would never say what this guy said in the movie.
6 - When they show the buying group conference (the one that costs $25,000 to attend) they make it look like an insider meeting attended by the rich blue-bloods. I've attended these trade shows and they are nothing of the type. Mostly they take place in a large open conference center with a crowd of booths filled with working people trying to make a living. The crowd of booths would also have multiple manufacturers selling a diverse line of products, including multiple types of safety needles from multiple manufacturers. The fact being that there was no shortage of safety needles at these shows and they were offered from a diverse set of different manufacturers.
Like I said, if this movie wasn't advertised as "true' I probably would have liked it. However, I couldn't in good conscience allow them to perpetrate this lie without speaking up. If you doubt me, think to yourself, when was the last time a lawyer (especially an ambulance chaser) really did something that was not for their own personal gain?