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

241–250 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#241

Post by lokar »

throwway120385 wrote: post #235
xeckr wrote: post #231

I don't understand the hatred directed at the Sacklers. Oxycodone is, just like all other opiates, highly effective at suppressing pain, potentially addictive, and deadly in large enough doses. This has been common medical knowledge for millennia. Why do so many people believe that they are responsible for overdose deaths?

Because they marketed an opioid as an "extended release" form when they knew from their own internal studies that the pain relief only lasted the standard 6 hours instead of the 8 hours that were claimed. As a result, people would find themselves taking more to stay on top of their symptoms and the resulting ramp in use would leave people debilitated.

It was also pitched as abuse resistant (something about it being hard to grind up the pills), which they also knew to be untrue.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#242

Post by saghm »

legitster wrote: post #229
jpalawaga wrote: post #218

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine. The sacklers have done immeasurable damage to the country. All of their wealth should be removed. Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. And perhaps some of the individual pushers/purveyors o…

The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal. A DA that thought there was a strong enough case could have brought charges this whole time irrespective of the settlement agreement. > Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. Part of the settlement agreement was that they were going to turn Pu…

> The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal

I don't understand how this changes anything; why would it make any more sense for the subset of the victims who settled to absolve the Sacklers of financial liability towards to the victims who didn't settle? The type of liability doesn't change the fact that victims not part of the settlement shouldn't be restricted by the terms of it; being able to push their own case separately is the entire reason why people are allowed to opt out of class action settlements.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#243

Post by photochemsyn »

AlexandrB wrote: post #114
photochemsyn wrote: post #37

Interestingly the same kinds of tactics used to push opiates on the general public are still being used to push amphetamine analogs - but the death rate from amphetamine addiction/overdose is much much lower (>1000X lower) than that from opiate addiction/overdose so it doesn't really hit the headlines, and arguably is not as much of a concern. From a libertarian point of view, mood- and mind-altering substance use sh…

The problem with mind altering substances is they can short circuit your rational thinking. So you can start with the most well-considered decision process ever and still end up addicted. In fact, this doesn't even require a substance. Gambling is plenty addictive to many. There's a kind of fallacy to thinking that sufficient education can counter biological human desires and impulses in all cases.

That's the authoritarian view - people don't know what's good for them, so their behavior needs to be controlled by the state as informed by a small group of elites who themselves are somehow free from the influence of those biological human desires and impulses... which is why drug testing as a condition of employment was never implemented for political candidates, heads of bureaucratic government agencies, or corporate CEOs.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#244

Post by lokar »

louwrentius wrote: post #233

Without proper context, it’s not clear to me if this is good or bad. It bad for the victims because there’s no settlement. It’s good for justice as people with a ton of money shouldn’t be above the law.

It’s good if you think judges should follow the law more or less as written by congress. The whole concept of a 3rd party release in bankruptcy is simply not in the law. Congress could add it, but they have not.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#245

Post by 7thaccount »

legitster wrote: post #229
jpalawaga wrote: post #218

This is the only reasonable outcome... you can't deny some people justice just because other people think it's fine. The sacklers have done immeasurable damage to the country. All of their wealth should be removed. Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. And perhaps some of the individual pushers/purveyors o…

The Sacklers were absolved of financial liability, not criminal. A DA that thought there was a strong enough case could have brought charges this whole time irrespective of the settlement agreement. > Their foundation should be dismantled and used to fund damage and mental health services for addicts of the opioid crisis that they went on to create. Part of the settlement agreement was that they were going to turn Pu…

Last time I looked into things, the fines they were going to pay is a tiny slap on the wrist compared to the obscene money they made. They can put the billions in an account and use just some of the interest for the fines. The biggest hit to them so far was having their name removed from some museums. Let that sink in. They've lost some slight prestige with other wealthy folks.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#246

Post by KerrAvon »

xeckr wrote: post #231

I don't understand the hatred directed at the Sacklers. Oxycodone is, just like all other opiates, highly effective at suppressing pain, potentially addictive, and deadly in large enough doses. This has been common medical knowledge for millennia. Why do so many people believe that they are responsible for overdose deaths?

https://www.britannica.com/science/opioid

> Although a different formulation of oxycodone, manufactured by Merck & Co., was removed from the market in 1990 because of a high risk of addiction, members of the Sackler family downplayed the dangers of OxyContin, deceiving doctors into thinking that it was weaker than morphine and convincing them to prescribe the drug liberally

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#247

Post by cowboyscott »

xeckr wrote: post #231

I don't understand the hatred directed at the Sacklers. Oxycodone is, just like all other opiates, highly effective at suppressing pain, potentially addictive, and deadly in large enough doses. This has been common medical knowledge for millennia. Why do so many people believe that they are responsible for overdose deaths?

This provides a good overview of how Purdue accelerated opiate marketing: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sackler-familys...

> A recent study, by a team of economists from the Wharton School, Notre Dame, and rand, reviewed overdose statistics in five states where Purdue opted, because of local regulations, to concentrate fewer resources in promoting its drug. The scholars found that, in those states, overdose rates—even from heroin and fentanyl—are markedly lower than in states where Purdue did the full marketing push. The study concludes that “the introduction and marketing of OxyContin explain a substantial share of overdose deaths over the last two decades.”

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#248

Post by sillywalk »

csdreamer7 wrote: post #207
chasil wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem of which I was unaware is that the Sackler family has largely fled the United States. Pursuing their assets introduces vast complexities of international law. "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were…

> "In a brief filed on behalf of the relatives of Mortimer Sackler, most of whom are based overseas, lawyers warned of “significant litigation costs and risks” in seeking to enforce any foreign court judgments against the family if the settlement were thrown out." I understand your point, but basically they are saying: "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion an…

> "We hid all our assets to evade the law. Give us immunity from criminal money laundering evasion and we will only pay part of what we likely would have owed."

> Can you imagine a member of Congress or the President saying this?

Yes.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#249

Post by HWR_14 »

bumby wrote: post #89
HWR_14 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you sure doctors are "so easy to manipulate"? Is the general public more immune? Are there many professions that are more immune?

I read the OP as "professionals should be less easily manipulated than the general public because of their background knowledge on the subject". Consider whether most would think a mechanic is more or less easily manipulated into unnecessary vehicle repairs.

> whether most would think a mechanic is more or less easily manipulated into unnecessary vehicle repairs.

That's different. This is closer to a mechanic using a part from Company X in the repairs of their customer's car, because a rep told them it was more durable.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#250

Post by photochemsyn »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #73
photochemsyn wrote: post #37

Interestingly the same kinds of tactics used to push opiates on the general public are still being used to push amphetamine analogs - but the death rate from amphetamine addiction/overdose is much much lower (>1000X lower) than that from opiate addiction/overdose so it doesn't really hit the headlines, and arguably is not as much of a concern. From a libertarian point of view, mood- and mind-altering substance use sh…

I guess I'm not sure what the point of the comparison is. If the death rate from opioid addiction were 1000x lower, I would happily bite the bullet and say Purdue did nothing wrong. Chronic pain is real and terrible - it would be great to have a solution where the downside risk is no worse than an Adderall dependency.

In my experience, people who use amphetamines (and cocaine) regularly start making very bad decisions, and heavy use leads to amphetamine psychosis. A very public example of this was the behavior of the SBF / FTX / Alameda operation, where by several accounts regular amphetamine use was the norm. That doesn't mean it should be illegal, but I'd avoid associating with anyone I knew had an amphetamine or cocaine dependency.
Post reply on HN