How the Sacklers shifted $10.8B of an opioid fortune built on OxyContin

Post by R0b0t1 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 2:48 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #17

save_ferris wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this is so naive. They were billionaires yesterday and they’re going to be billionaires tomorrow. Their reputation is going to be fine because we live in a society that absolutely worships money and those who have it. People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet.

> People with that kind of money can pay to scrub the internet. I'm sorry but this is so naive. Maybe true if you've got a bit of money and a little bit of notoriety, but I don't think that it would be possible to dissociate the Sacklers' name from the opioid crisis anytime soon.

Post by Scoundreller » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #50

songshu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are supposed to have learned about it in medical school. If not, that's fine, maybe doctors shouldn't be allowed to prescribe and maybe only pharmacists should be allowed. My point is that it's a very valuable professional quality and we should put the responsibility where the quality is.

This is (well, was) a new drug. Doctors cannot have learned about a drug in medical school when that drug did not exist when they were studying. My parents are retired Dutch GPs who also ran a small pharmacy[0], so I know a little about how this works, at least in the Netherlands (I admit that this is a pretty big caveat, because (aside from the obvious biases that this introduces) the opioid crisis doesn't exist her…

Post by R0b0t1 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

sacred_numbers wrote: post #76

pradn wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do doctors get paid more for prescribing one brand of medication vs another?

Not typically in money, but in gifts, lunches, and attention paid by young, attractive pharmaceutical sales people. For opioids, specifically, there is also the factor that doctors prescribing opioids will have higher customer satisfaction in the short term because opioids are better than almost anything for pain relief. Higher customer satisfaction (not necessarily the same as better patient outcomes) usually means…

Post by bcrosby95 » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #68

wombatmobile wrote: post #2

If we had a justice system, that $10.8 billion would be recoverable, and used to try to rehabilitate the victims. But we don't have a justice system. We have a legal system, and a financial system.

Surely 100% of opiod usage isn't bad? So 100% of the $10.8B isn't blood money? I'm sure some % of the opioids really helped people. For example, my grandpa has extremely painful back pain, and opioids were a godsend. Yeah, he got addicted, but he's in his 90s anyway, so at least he can live the rest of his life without dealing with crippling back pain.

Post by Dirlewanger » Wed, Aug 26, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

songshu wrote: post #35

blendergeek wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why don’t doctors unions throw out members who would claim to have been hoodwinked by pharmaceutical companies? If the companies are lying about safety, how are the doctors supposed to know? The only ones with the data necessary to know the dangers of these drugs are the manufacturers and the manufacturers were lying and covering up the dangers.

They are supposed to have learned about it in medical school. If not, that's fine, maybe doctors shouldn't be allowed to prescribe and maybe only pharmacists should be allowed. My point is that it's a very valuable professional quality and we should put the responsibility where the quality is.