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

101–110 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#101

Post by michaelt »

dataflow wrote: post #19

How is there such a big divide in the court on this? Is the law really this unclear on the matter?

The law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties.

But it does include a term saying a plan "may" also "include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" - subject to the approval of a judge.

Applying the broadest possible interpretation of this catch-all wording would produce absurd results - a bankruptcy plan would be more powerful than the constitution itself. So courts have to figure out just how broad an interpretation to apply.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#102

Post by ARandomerDude »

elzbardico wrote: post #8
hedora wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also designed it to be more addictive. The recommended dosage and timing causes the patients to repeatedly experience minor withdrawal during normal use, which is a standard technique for conditioning someone into being an addict. All of this is documented in emails that were presented as evidence in court.

They learned it from the tobacco industry probably.

Is there a recommended dosage and timing from the tobacco industry?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#103

Post by Auracle »

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..."

A friend of mine recently died from cancer. I had looked up some particular things about it while he was still alive, and apparently some cookies got crossed and I was marked as an oncologist. I've had some ads on Facebook or Instagram telling me, the "oncologist," about particular cancer drugs. Of course, everyone in the US has probably seen regular ads for various cancer drugs.

Doctors pretty much need to be intelligent and hard working to get through med school and residency. After that, they might not necessarily keep up with things. You'd think oncologists would know the best treatments for each patient, but if that were true those ads would be worthless - and I doubt those companies like to throw money away.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#104

Post by [deleted] »

throwup238 wrote: post #79
dataflow wrote: post #19

How is there such a big divide in the court on this? Is the law really this unclear on the matter?

IANAL but most contested Supreme Court decisions I've read (going all the way back to AP gov class) sounded like they could have reasonably been decided either way depending on who had control over the court. The law is ambiguous and complex enough that there's just so many logical ways to approach a decision and little in the way of prioritizing or disambiguating them. Whatever their bias, judges have lots of ways o…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#105

Post by heyoni »

robxorb wrote: post #82
delichon wrote: post #28

Thank 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.

This is my gripe with regular news. Science paper? No link. New law bill? No link. Someone made an hour-long speech? 30 second cut, no link to the full speech. Is it almost as if they'd rather we didn't see their sources?

All of those things take you away from their platforms. They don't want you to leave, period.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#106

Post by bobthepanda »

LordKeren wrote: post #23
SoftTalker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also Purdue themselves were pushing pain management as an outcome to manage, to sell more Oxy.

Totally pain-free medical care is a bit misguided.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#107

Post by dustincoates »

delichon wrote: post #28

Thank 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.

A more cynical take is that it isn't editorial incompetence, it's an editorial decision. Once you notice it, it's hard not to notice how often you aren't given the sources or ways to further confirm stories, especially those that might be controversial.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#108

Post by vanderZwan »

> WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday blew up the massive bankruptcy reorganization of opioid maker Purdue Pharma, finding that the settlement inappropriately included legal protections for the Sackler family, meaning that billions of dollars secured for victims is now threatened.

Does anyone find it strange that this is described as a loss for the victims?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#110

Post by iamacyborg »

sparklingmango wrote: post #13
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.

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.

Having read that, I still find it shocking when I see their names on various donor plaques in big British museums.
Post reply on HN