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

521–530 of 691 posts

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#521

Post by qarl »

adastra22 wrote: post #516
qarl wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK - but the individual payouts are going to be small and do little to compensate for the harm caused. The primary goal for the suit is to punish the wrongdoing and disincentivize similar future behavior by others. Higher costs and uncertainty does that.

In your opinion. I think those owed restitution would feel differently about the primary purpose.

Yeah. I looked up the settlement - it amounts to tens of thousands of dollars per individual. I can see how that would be important to many people.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#522

Post by rayiner »

relaxing wrote: post #433
rayiner wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to convey how legal conservatives think, as someone who is one. I am, on many policy issues, quite liberal. I think rich people should pay more taxes, people should drive EVs, etc. But ultimately I care more about the rules--especially the rules about who makes decisions and where power is allocated--than I do about what people or outcomes. I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies o…

[flagged]

Both examples are expressing the same belief about Dobbs! Yes, I believe the social harmony from allowing these questions to be decided democratically outweighs individual "rights."

What about Ireland? Abortion was illegal in Ireland until 2018, and then it was put to the public for vote in a referendum. In 2010, the European Court of Human Rights refused to overturn Ireland's abortion ban (though it did find a due process violation with respect to the lack of procedures for qualifying for a pre-existing exception for life-threatening conditions). That's how the law works in civilized democracies. People make decisions on social issues, not judges.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#523

Post by rayiner »

relaxing wrote: post #416
rayiner wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to convey how legal conservatives think, as someone who is one. I am, on many policy issues, quite liberal. I think rich people should pay more taxes, people should drive EVs, etc. But ultimately I care more about the rules--especially the rules about who makes decisions and where power is allocated--than I do about what people or outcomes. I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies o…

> I'd rather see 3C of global warming than administrative agencies operating contrary to the tripartite system of government the Founders designed. You want to see millions dead to support your political philosophy?

I think the most redeeming quality of Americans--an inheritance from the British--is that they'll jump off a bridge if they're told to do so by a court and the required procedures have been followed. Rule following, more than anything else, what separates advanced democracies from the third world country I come from. And in the long run it's what will save the most lives and lead to the most prosperity and social harmony.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#524

Post by stg24 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
jakewins wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opinion and dissent are actually relatively approachable and lay out exactly what the disagreement is about: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf It seems to come down to whether the sentence "[A chapter 11 bankruptcy plan may] include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" means "A plan can contain anything anyone can imagine as reaso…

It also seems to turn whether the Sacklers seek a third-party “release,” which is precedented, or “discharge,” which is not. (The Court also assumes Purdue’s indemnification of the Sacklers will not hold, which would allow the Sacklers to drain Purdue as they fight the various claims against them.) Interestingly, the argument for is textual. The argument against is pragmatic. (Both argue history, in my opinion, uncon…

The argument for is a mixture of textualism and moral repugnance at the idea of letting the Sacklers keeping billions in profits they made from killing a quarter of a million people. I suspect the second part was strengthened to swing Jackson's vote and aside from her, it's a fairly standard split.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#525

Post by shadowgovt »

beaeglebeachedd wrote: post #462
com2kid wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I blame the patient. We've known opiates were bad since at least the 1800s, and really longer than that. As a reminder, Oxy was heavily marketed, (to doctors!) as a "not bad" opioid. As in, not as addictive, not as problematic, and something that can be prescribed more easily and with less worries. If a doctor comes up and tell you "don't worry about this one, it isn't addictive like the others", and you are in a t…

You didn't learn about the opium wars? I'm not talking about dare which was obvious bullshit, I'm talking of learning from history. There was no weed war, that a drug caused a couple wars lasting decades should at least raise an eyebrow of any thinking person.

What lesson should the opium wars have taught that's applicable to oxy prescription?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#526

Post by Retric »

jnovek wrote: post #484
darth_avocado wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it’s quite clear that America had a parallel opioid crisis going on I don’t think that’s really the case. What happened here was that peddling oxy, created the excess demand that is now met by illicit sources that cause more deaths now that oxy is regulated. But what you’re missing in your understanding is that without oxy, demand wouldn’t exist in the first place. And that’s the harm everyone is talking about.…

You’re saying “created excess demand” like the people that you’re referring to weren’t chronic pain patients. I know some of them were drug-seekers but we decided it was OK to throw chronic pain patients under the bus so we could eliminate those drug-seekers. Now, in addition to dealing with pain every day, I also have to “prove” that I’m not an opioid seeker if I end up in the ER for overwhelming pain. Because sayin…

You can directly count the total amount prescribed opioids through time and adjust for potency.

Purdue Pharma didn’t just manufacture a drug. They did a great deal of behind the scenes manipulating so even people who did not seek out severe pain medication were prescribed extremely high doses.

In terms of long term pain management opioids suck. People need increasing doses over time until the drugs side effects become toxic. Not such a problem in hospice or someone in an ambulance after a major accident, but handing them to people with chronic conditions guarantees a downward spiral. Perdue Pharma knew this, strait up lied about it, and even pleaded guilty to mislabeling OxyContin.

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#527

Post by presentation »

addicted wrote: post #425
janalsncm wrote: post #398

Pound for pound, the Sacklers probably did more damage to America than any other drug dealers in history. More damage than any serial killer or mass shooter. In my mind they should be considered public enemies 1 through N. I sincerely hope they face civil and criminal liabilities for what they’ve done.

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…

Opinions like this are why I’m glad I don’t live in the USA anymore. Live practically anywhere else, where there is no opioid crisis, and this line of thinking sounds insane. Copy paste for other uniquely American issues like gun violence - the answer is… more guns?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#528

Post by itsdrewmiller »

shawndrost wrote: post #401
doublet00th wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a misunderstanding in what the settlement is about. As part of Purdue's bankruptcy, the Sackler family is voluntarily providing 6 billion dollars to help settle claims opioid victims have brought against Purdue Pharma. As a condition to provide the 6 billion dollars, the Sackler family has asked the bankruptcy judge to not even allow any new suits against the Sacklers related to the Opioid epidemic. T…

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.

You said:

>I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-is. Which is, I think, the conclusion from this settlement. If this is you, can you help me understand? Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely?

As GP noted, that is not the conclusion of the settlement - not even close. If you want to better understand comments on this page, perhaps reply to them asking for clarity?

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#529

Post by [deleted] »

suslik wrote: post #386
michael_vo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you have recovered without pain killers? Or maybe used a pain killer that is much weaker that doesn't kill all the pain but is much safer like marijuana? Are there scientific studies that shows that opioids help patients recover quicker?

Why is this question important? The primary purpose of pain medication is not to facilitate recovery, but to reduce suffering and increase quality of life.

[deleted]

Re: Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement

#530

Post by ok_computer »

addicted wrote: post #425
janalsncm wrote: post #398

Pound for pound, the Sacklers probably did more damage to America than any other drug dealers in history. More damage than any serial killer or mass shooter. In my mind they should be considered public enemies 1 through N. I sincerely hope they face civil and criminal liabilities for what they’ve done.

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…

Lol fentanyl is more toxic by an order or two of magnitude. People would be on prescription opioids, lose a script, get on heroin because that was 4 to 8 times cheaper and more available than black market pills. The fentanyl crisis is a phenomenon between cheap imported precursor and Cartel economics.

The synthetic opioid demand in the US was a result of a chain of events including the purposeful stimulation of demand by marketing directly to Drs, lying about abuse potential, lying about withdrawal and addiction potential, and not introducing mediating controls when evidence of abuse and sales not meeting market demographics was clearly evident. Like they imported millions of pills to small towns with over selling pharmacies. Drs would up dosage to adjust to tolerance. But anyway it’s fentanyl that is killing people. I’d argue just let people use opium and regulate that sale.

Edit: changed and to an. Chinese precursor to imported precursor bc I honestly don’t know how many different countries are sources of a precursor. Added part about importing to small towns and upping dosage.

Post reply on HN