Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement • Hacker News Board

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#441

Post by beaeglebeachedd » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:10 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #431

addicted wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue it’s the opposite. Look at what’s happened since Oxycontin was heavily regulated. Opioid deaths in America have exploded by an order of magnitude. There’s a direct correlation between higher regulation of OxyContin and opioid deaths in the U.S. The Sacklers have done illegal stuff. Misrepresenting the addictiveness of their drugs (well, it was immoral and wrong…it’s not clear how illegal it was). But it’s q…

Sure, OxyContin is better than Fentanyl, and banning Oxy can push people to way more dangerous opioids. But before painting Purdue as a hero of the people, let’s remember that million of people were pushed to opioids through Oxy when they shouldn’t have in the first place. Purdue played a big part in creating the epidemic in the first place. People that are now pushed to harder drugs because of an addiction they got…

It's the same shit practically all the way back to opium wars.

Always the drug dealers fault.

I blame the patient. We've known opiates were bad since at least the 1800s, and really longer than that. What the doc said was just what they needed to hear to lie to themselves, but this is taught in every highschool.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#442

Post by legitster » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:11 PM UTC

shawndrost wrote: post #426

legitster wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Under the bankruptcy settlement, Purdue will continue to sell opioids. The ownership will change (profits will be used to fund the causes you listed) but the operations will not. Right?

You know I can't actually find a lot of details about what the "new" Purdue was supposed to operate like - my understanding was that it was going to turn into a receivership under the court.

But that's kind of the weirdness of all of this - at no point was OxyContin itself banned or been made illegal.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#443

Post by RIMR » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

sailingparrot wrote: post #431

addicted wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue it’s the opposite. Look at what’s happened since Oxycontin was heavily regulated. Opioid deaths in America have exploded by an order of magnitude. There’s a direct correlation between higher regulation of OxyContin and opioid deaths in the U.S. The Sacklers have done illegal stuff. Misrepresenting the addictiveness of their drugs (well, it was immoral and wrong…it’s not clear how illegal it was). But it’s q…

Sure, OxyContin is better than Fentanyl, and banning Oxy can push people to way more dangerous opioids. But before painting Purdue as a hero of the people, let’s remember that million of people were pushed to opioids through Oxy when they shouldn’t have in the first place. Purdue played a big part in creating the epidemic in the first place. People that are now pushed to harder drugs because of an addiction they got…

Exactly. If it wasn't for the existing demand for cheap powerful opioids, Fentanyl would never have been a problem to begin with.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#444

Post by EncomLab » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:14 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #413

shawndrost wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My question is not about the settlement; it's a question about moral judgements people have around Sacklers/Purdue, including judgements I see on this comment page. I already understand the mechanical details you've explained and they don't answer my question.

> Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely? Oxycodone is routinely and safely administered right now, to tens of thousands of people, every day. But this is kind of like, an FDA question, no?

Which is why going after the Sackler's is about politics and not about the law.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#445

Post by chasil » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:15 PM UTC

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…

Consider a few issues:

- the foremost among the perpetrators are dead

- the rest of the family is culpable, but less so

- the settlement money will now be entirely repurposed for legal defense

- meanwhile the victims get nothing

Does justice demand punishment or compensation?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#446

Post by voisin » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:15 PM UTC

It’s pretty wild that everyone acknowledges that the Sacklers engaged in a “milking program” going from 15% to 70% distributions after the first lawsuits in order to strip the company of assets and then hide behind the company to shield liability. This alone should allow claimants to pierce the corporate veil and go after the family directly.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#447

Post by shawndrost » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:16 PM UTC

cheeze wrote: post #303

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-…

Here is a good resource on it [1]. My understanding is that Purdue pushed hard for marketing, including paying doctors to market for them. This paragraph sums up most of it. > “Purdue admitted that it marketed and sold its dangerous opioid products to healthcare providers, even though it had reason to believe those providers were diverting them to abusers,” said Rachael A. Honig, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the…

I understand the contents of the link; that judgement prompts my question rather than answering it.

The DOJ found that old Purdue's problem was illgal marketing, kickbacks, etc. I understand that as a legalistic thing.

But as far as human judgement goes: I thought the problem here was opioid addiction, which is continuing to rise in the "new Purdue" regime. We all think old Purdue should not have been doing the illegal stuff. But was the illegal stuff the real problem here? It seems like the "new Purdue" reforms are not affecting the growth of the opioid epidemic.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#448

Post by dylan604 » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:16 PM UTC

Spivak wrote: post #432

lesuorac wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really unclear how knowingly creating a scenario where people die of overdosing for profit isn't criminal.

Because car manufacturers exist, and this isn't theoretical or a jab at cars themselves. We are 100% certain that people will die while using cars, and by cars. Vehicular manslaughter even has a high bar for real punishment precisely because driving a car has an inherent risk of killing others and that risk is legal to take on. Knowing that some people using your product will die, and even that selling more of your p…

Except Purdue clearly stated that addiction was not an issue with their product. Car manufactures never say that death is no longer possible with their product. They blatantly misrepresented the dangers of their product in ways none of the other examples you listed come close.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#449

Post by voisin » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:17 PM UTC

beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #441

sailingparrot wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, OxyContin is better than Fentanyl, and banning Oxy can push people to way more dangerous opioids. But before painting Purdue as a hero of the people, let’s remember that million of people were pushed to opioids through Oxy when they shouldn’t have in the first place. Purdue played a big part in creating the epidemic in the first place. People that are now pushed to harder drugs because of an addiction they got…

It's the same shit practically all the way back to opium wars. Always the drug dealers fault. I blame the patient. We've known opiates were bad since at least the 1800s, and really longer than that. What the doc said was just what they needed to hear to lie to themselves, but this is taught in every highschool.

> We've known opiates were bad since at least the 1800s, and really longer than that. What the doc said was just what they needed to hear to lie to themselves, but this is taught in every highschool.

I am not sure high schools are teaching people to be distrustful of their doctor’s advice. I think what’s being taught is about the dangers of illicit drugs, not those with a medical expert’s stamp of approval.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#450

Post by tonyarkles » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 10:18 PM UTC

beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #441

sailingparrot wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, OxyContin is better than Fentanyl, and banning Oxy can push people to way more dangerous opioids. But before painting Purdue as a hero of the people, let’s remember that million of people were pushed to opioids through Oxy when they shouldn’t have in the first place. Purdue played a big part in creating the epidemic in the first place. People that are now pushed to harder drugs because of an addiction they got…

It's the same shit practically all the way back to opium wars. Always the drug dealers fault. I blame the patient. We've known opiates were bad since at least the 1800s, and really longer than that. What the doc said was just what they needed to hear to lie to themselves, but this is taught in every highschool.

> but this is taught in every high school

Here's the thing about what they teach you about drugs in high school: lots of it is bullshit. I don't know if it's still a thing but when I was in school there was a lot of pearl clutching about weed being a Gateway Drug. For a lot of people who smoked weed and didn't progress towards any harder drugs, weed was a prime example of how drug education was a sham. No one went crazy, none of the weed horror stories came true, everyone enjoyed the concert and woke up the next morning feeling better than if they'd been drinking alcohol the night before.