Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#11

Post by piva00 »

realce wrote: post #4

>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…

US$ 6bi to be disbursed across hundreds of local governments to use for settlements over millions of individuals is nothing compared to the damage the Sacklers inflicted. On top of that having a sweet deal to never see any future liability case is an egregious misjustice.

The minimum would be for them to be arrested, if we pushed drugs to someone who eventually dies from it we wouldn't be getting just a fine. At the scale they did it's simply inconceivable to me that paying a fine which is less than their profit is anywhere close to justice.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#12

Post by SoftTalker »

7thaccount wrote: post #3
ronnier wrote: post #2

> Purdue made billions from OxyContin, a widely available painkiller that fueled the opioid epidemic

It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.

Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#13

Post by sparklingmango »

7thaccount wrote: post #3
ronnier wrote: post #2

> Purdue made billions from OxyContin, a widely available painkiller that fueled the opioid epidemic

It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.

Additionally, I recommend the book Empire of Pain for an excellent deep dive into the Sackler family and how they essentially created the opioid epidemic. You'll be infuriated as you read it.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#14

Post by LordKeren »

realce wrote: post #4

>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…

It depends on what your personal views are here.

If you wanted the outcome of the case to be at least some money going towards opioid treatment, then this decision could jeopardize that outcome.

However, if you thought that the Sackler family being able to escape any personal liability despite the myriad of evidence of many of their involvement in stoking the opioid epidemic— and they still got to keep a very sizeable amount of the family fortune— is morally repugnant and legally dubious, then this court decision is a positive.

I would personally prefer many of the executives and members of the Sackler family to be held liable, their assets seized, and formal charges brought against them. But that’s unlikely

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#15

Post by SoftTalker »

cogman10 wrote: post #5
realce wrote: post #4

>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…

Positive outcome. They earned hundreds of billions from their actions which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Giving them permanent immunity was insane.

It also makes sense to me. If someone didn't join the class action, they should not be bound by its settlement, and should be free to pursue damage claims on their own.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#16

Post by czl »

realce wrote: post #4

>The court on a 5-4 vote ruled that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to release the Sackler family members from legal claims made by opioid victims. As part of the deal, the family, which controlled the company, had agreed to pay $6 billion that could be used to settle opioid-related claims, but only in return for a complete release from any liability in future cases. Is this actually a positive outcom…

From the article:

> Harrington objected to the release of additional claims against the Sacklers, saying it would be unfair to potential future plaintiffs.

> Purdue criticized Harrington’s role, saying that groups representing thousands of plaintiffs have signed on to the settlement, which could not have happened without the Sackler family contribution.

The concern is the set of current plaintiffs is incomplete and those plaintiffs who are missing are going to be hurt by this and the bankruptcy judge over this decision does not have the authority to approve this deal despite the current set of plaintiffs wanting it.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#18

Post by [deleted] »

SoftTalker wrote: post #12
7thaccount wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.

Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#20

Post by logicchains »

SoftTalker wrote: post #12
7thaccount wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.

Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."

>Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."

Because the pharma company offered them direct or indirect benefits for doing so. Doctors are just as human and just as susceptible to financial incentive as anybody else, that's why for decades there were doctors advertising the health benefits of smoking.

Post reply on HN