3 ms·

Opioid pain drugs are life savers for people who actually need them, so I think this is a bit more complicated than capitalist Satan-incarnate vs. the poor help

Opioid pain drugs are life savers for people who actually need them, so I think this is a bit more complicated than capitalist Satan-incarnate vs. the poor helpless fools duped into taking his wicked drug.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
I'm not denying that opioid drugs are useful, but the way Purdue Pharma actually acted is much more in line with a capitalist Satan-incarnate view, regardless of the benefits of opioids.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Yea, framing the discussion as “people believe pharmaceuticals acted amorally because the produce opioid medicines” is reframing the debate imo.
theossuary 8y ago
It is certainly more complicated, but that doesn't necessarily make the manufactures look better. From all accounts, they marketed their drug as non-addictive, in spite of evidence they had to the contrary. Now after getting people addicted to their safe medication, they've made a "cure" for it. Who's to say the cure isn't worse than the disease? I wouldn't trust them to make that judgement call. It isn't as if Oxycodone is the only way to manage pain either.
- NegativeLatency 8y ago
  Not only the manufactures, but also the pharma sales reps who make commission. Plenty of blame to go around.
  - lostlogin 8y ago
    Agreed, and at this point in time, those prescribing have a big share of the responsibility too.
maxerickson 8y ago
OxyContin was largely a gimmick to market a drug that was long out of patent (Oxycodone was first synthesized in 1916): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/
- pizzazzaro 8y ago
  The real gimmick? That it would be "non-addictive".
DanBC 8y ago
Purdue were aggressively pushing oxy to people who didn't need them though, and were describing it as non-addictive even though they knew it was addictive. People always say "what about those who have pain at the 8, 9 or 10 end of the scale?" Well, the US could probably cut prescribing by 80% and leave those people still on the meds.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

I'm not denying that opioid drugs are useful, but the way Purdue Pharma actually acted is much more in line with a capitalist Satan-incarnate view, regardless of the benefits of opioids.

travmatt 8y ago
Yea, framing the discussion as “people believe pharmaceuticals acted amorally because the produce opioid medicines” is reframing the debate imo.

theossuary 8y ago

It is certainly more complicated, but that doesn't necessarily make the manufactures look better. From all accounts, they marketed their drug as non-addictive, in spite of evidence they had to the contrary. Now after getting people addicted to their safe medication, they've made a "cure" for it. Who's to say the cure isn't worse than the disease? I wouldn't trust them to make that judgement call. It isn't as if Oxycodone is the only way to manage pain either.

NegativeLatency 8y ago
Not only the manufactures, but also the pharma sales reps who make commission. Plenty of blame to go around.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Agreed, and at this point in time, those prescribing have a big share of the responsibility too.

maxerickson 8y ago

OxyContin was largely a gimmick to market a drug that was long out of patent (Oxycodone was first synthesized in 1916): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

pizzazzaro 8y ago
The real gimmick? That it would be "non-addictive".

DanBC 8y ago

Purdue were aggressively pushing oxy to people who didn't need them though, and were describing it as non-addictive even though they knew it was addictive. People always say "what about those who have pain at the 8, 9 or 10 end of the scale?" Well, the US could probably cut prescribing by 80% and leave those people still on the meds.