[flagged]
Force?
Edit: "Force to trust"? Because everyone answering didn't read ops comment.
Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
21–30 of 691 posts
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#22>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…
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#23Earlier 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..."
It’s easy to overlook that OxyContin was very effective. Even a doctor acting in good faith was likely to prescribe the drug— because it worked well. It really did help people struggling with pain management. The downside, of course, was that Purdue pharma was knowingly misleading doctors on the addictiveness of the drug. Also the amount of doctors that were willing to turn a blind eye to the clear signs of addiction is very worrying.
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#24>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.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#25For those claiming the Supreme Court is a political institution, I'd like to note that this was indeed a 5-4 decision.
But one with Justices in the majority who were appointed by Biden, Trump, Bush 43, and Bush 41, and in the minority who were appointed by Bush 43, Obama, and Trump.
It was Jackson, Gorsuch, Barrett, Alito, and Thomas in the majority and Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh in the minority.
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#26[flagged]
2008 - Too big to fail
2021 - Too big to doubt
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#27Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#28Thank you. For my purpose as a reader it is editorial incompetence that the article neither provided that link, nor the name of the case to make it easy to lookup.
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#29[flagged]
It is negligent to conflate the impacts of an addictive drug with a vaccine.
Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Positive outcome. They earned hundreds of billions from their actions which resulted in the deaths of thousands. Giving them permanent immunity was insane.
Definitely a positive income. These people bear some of the responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. There is no way they should ever be immune from further punishments and get to live out the rest of their lives as billionaires.
[deleted]