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

291–300 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#291

Post by alistairSH »

qarl wrote: post #216
adastra22 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it is. The victims had a settlement agreement worth billions of dollars, which the Sackler family was going to willingly provide in exchange for legal protections. Now that legal protections are off the table, it is very unlikely that any new settlement will be as generous, and in fact quite unlikely that any settlement will be achieved at all.

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

Even if that's the result (which is questionable), the Sacklers are almost all overseas and their assets are "hidden" in complex schemes. So, collection is as big a hurdle as coming to a reasonable judgement.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#292

Post by BobaFloutist »

alan-hn wrote: post #125
tracker1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"trust the science" edit: it's meant in sarcasm, mostly.

We can trust the process of science but we need to be mindful of how to critically examine a body of literature. When I see most lay people examine literature all they do is cherry pick what they like and discard the rest and ignore any analysis or methodological concerns

It's incredibly hard to do anything else, since it's pretty easy to cherry pick methodological concerns for any given conclusion you don't care for, since it's incredibly rare for a given body of work to be free of methodological flaws.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#293

Post by esd_g0d »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #251
esd_g0d wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It took the collaboration of many different people, all of which also profited from it, to bring about the opioid crisis.

The vendor who sells many different things seems to be at least a bit less culpable than the provider who sells just their thing while lying about certain effects of it. Yes, we can examine how we got into this situation where doctors take drug advice from the people who make the drugs but the people who lied for profit deserve the lion's share of the criticism.

In practice, even many of the general public knew that what the vendor was selling was addictive and dangerous -- there are some reports even in this thread. So it's hard for the vendor to claim ignorance, even more so when often they also stood to profit from the lie (repeat customers).

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#294

Post by blkhawk »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #221
rootusrootus wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You may find the money a pittance, but the victims decided otherwise. When you say 'the victims' are you implying they all agreed to this? So they are all okay with giving up their individual right to sue for damages? You make several points which imply that this is some kind of consensus position that everyone is okay with. That's the root of the problem, though -- this settlement in no way addresses the damage to…

The case and settlement has almost nothing to do with solving the problem at a societal level, with either outcome being negligible. Real progress would involve systemic changes to the treatment and causes of drug addiction, as well as medical treatment philosophy. To hang the opioid epidemic on perdue is a gross oversimplification, essentially a scapegoating of a multifactorial problem. Perdue sold the same pills in…

I think that was because they could more effectively market their "pain is bad mkay" strategy in the culturally and politically more homogeneous market that is the US. The European healthcare market is completely different for each country in multiple dimensions. Be it political, the way insurance is structured, laws are setup and governmental agencies handle them. That means while it is entirely possible to sell the pills in Europe they won't be prescribed in the amounts necessary to jump start the "vibrant free market" for them the US has. So they are just an opioid that is prescribed in extreme cases.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#295

Post by _DeadFred_ »

lycopodiopsida wrote: post #202
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…

The US are proud of getting some terrorist in the middle of Pakistan or putting pressure on whistleblowers internationally but when big money is involved getting a criminal scumbag responsible for ~1m deaths is suddenly a huge problem.

Listen, we can't spend like we did going after Julian Assange on this. It's just business people doing business.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#296

Post by BugsJustFindMe »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #258
qarl wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But also very likely that the case will go to court and the damages will be substantially higher.

Not really, it will be played out in a number of separate cases and each case is in a weaker position separately simply due to scale and resources. The Sacklers have an estimated $1bn liquid available to fight these things. The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise). Additionally most of the Sacklers are well into old age, so they'll probably die before losing $6bn.

> The $6bn ruling was significant and not an amazing outcome for either side (so, a compromise).

I find this framing extremely bizarre. A $6bn ruling means the family profits $5 BILLION. In no universe is that not an amazing outcome for them.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#297

Post by legitster »

shawndrost wrote: post #280

I understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, Purdue should be shut down, and we should transform the legal regime around opioids. I understand people who think Purdue should continue, the status quo is OK, and the Sacklers are not [simply] villainous. I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-…

The settlement was not at all about Purdue operating as is. Purdue was going to be turned into a legal fund and treatment provider as part of the settlement agreement.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#298

Post by snapcaster »

rootusrootus wrote: post #209
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…

Considering the patience the US has with getting justice against other individuals who have fled our jurisdiction, we could do the same here. We also have an enormous amount of influence in the financial sector in other western nations, so we could at least make their lives less lavish and comfortable. Throwing up our hands and declaring it an unsolvable issue just encourages others to misbehave and then escape the s…

We just need to convince people they leaked a couple videos of the war state doing bad stuff

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#299

Post by legitster »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #278
legitster wrote: post #179

I find the Supreme court decisions to be fascinating reads and overall much more interesting and complicated than most news services make them out to be.

Especially since this 5-4 decision didn't follow the "conservative" or "liberal" split at all.

And honestly, while we like to lump them into "conservative" and "liberal" camps for simplicity, it's easy to get the correlation wrong. Like anyone else, their moral and legal philosophies might make them lean one way or another politically, not the other way around. Even for the most extremely political justices, to hear them expound on the legal principles of federalism or human rights is very fascinating.

It's easy to forget that, while they are political appointees, they have to have fairly long careers as acting judges to even qualify for the appointments.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#300

Post by yostrovs »

shawndrost wrote: post #280

I understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, Purdue should be shut down, and we should transform the legal regime around opioids. I understand people who think Purdue should continue, the status quo is OK, and the Sacklers are not [simply] villainous. I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-…

I understand there's fraud and bribes and such, but it seems to me that in the end it is doctors and the medical system, with a bit of help from government regulators, that decide prescriptions, dosages, limitations and such. Purdue could have been making pure poison, but they don't prescribe anything.
Post reply on HN