5 ms·

A company sells a legal, FDA approved, drug. The motives of the company may not be pure, but so what? Does anyone sell anything with 100% pure motives? What

A company sells a legal, FDA approved, drug. The motives of the company may not be pure, but so what? Does anyone sell anything with 100% pure motives? What exactly is wrong with people making the most use of this drug as they see fit in their own lives? Is it wrong for people with chronic pain to take what they need? Why should doctors and others be able to prevent people from treating their pain?

trimbo 8y ago
The problem is Oxy was overprescribed relative to the addictive features of the drug _because_ the Sacklers falsely claimed that it was less addictive. Doctors believed that and were willing to prescribe a super-strong, easy-to-abuse drug when they would not have done so previously. From the New Yorker article I linked in a top level comment: "Purdue launched OxyContin with a marketing campaign that attempted to counter this attitude and change the prescribing habits of doctors. The company funded research and paid doctors to make the case that concerns about opioid addiction were overblown, and that OxyContin could safely treat an ever-wider range of maladies." 20 years later, I think we know how it turned out. Something like 75% of opioid addicts start with pills.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  And people who actually need pain management are unable to get it because other people insist they know better. And doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate amounts of pain killers.
  - chmod775 8y ago
    > [doctors] insist they know better. Because they probably do. Pain is a stimuli people will do a lot to avoid. But pain also exists for a reason. You generally can't trust people in pain to self medicate. Evolution did not give humans the ability to feel pain just to fuck with them. Pain prevents you from unnecessarily straining damaged body parts, keeping you from harming yourself further and making your condition worse. On painkillers you might hurt yourself doing something as simple as walking up a set of stairs, just because you didn't notice you placed your foot badly.
    - freedomben 8y ago
      Spoken exactly like somebody who has never suffered from chronic, debilitating, relentless pain.
      - chmod775 8y ago
        Instead of textbook logical fallacies would you care to provide any real arguments to support your position that people should essentially be allowed to self-prescribe painkillers? Or at least try to engage me on the points I made?
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    They should know better, that's their job. They are expected to have the knowledge and skills needed to know better. The fact that they willfully disregard that knowledge to satisfy the sales goals of a pharmaceutical salesman is egregious.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    My wife suffered a horrific back injury a few years ago. For medical reasons she had to wait about 6 months for a surgery and all that time the doctors she saw were scared to death to prescribe real pain meds even though she was often in tears from the pain, couldn't bear to walk more than a few feet, and couldn't sleep. My personal story is of a loved one needlessly suffering mind boggling amounts of pain for half a year because the DEA had so scared our doctors. Luckily the surgery was a 100% success and she doesn't need to rely up on the steaming pile of crap that is the DEA's interference in the medical community.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    How is this relevant to Purdue Pharma's fraud?
    - topspin 8y ago
      Chronic pain sufferers are denied effective pain killers because providers are under pressure to withhold them because law enforcement is aggressively pursuing providers that 'over prescribe' because abuse of prescription opioids is a 'widespread epidemic' because Purdue Pharma knowingly misled regulators and downplayed abuse because the Sacklers and all the political candidates they supported and all the foundations they funded and all the recipients of Sackler grants and endowments really like those big pharma bucks!
  - xoa 8y ago
    >And people who actually need pain management are unable to get it because other people insist they know better. And doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate amounts of pain killers. This is also a real problem, but I think a strong argument can be made that the Sacklers fraud is responsible for it too. A lot of the fear and under-prescription that now happens is a direct result of a strong backlash that itself was in response to the opioid epidemic and the massive damage that resulted. If that had never happened, then rather then the pendulum swinging way too far towards opioids everywhere and then (as is so often the case) right back over the neutral to suspicious of any opioids allowed for anyone anywhere, it could have been more steady state. Doctors would have known how serious the drugs were and been careful with prescriptions all along. Those who really needed them would get them, those who didn't would be directed elsewhere. If it never became such a political cause with so much rightful public interest and anger, then none of would intrude on the medical process. So really the Sacklers may well have screwed people over coming and going. People who would have been fine without were turned into addicts and had their lives ruined, and now people with horrendous chronic pain have to suffer with it and have their lives ruined.
pseudolus 8y ago
Life and our interactions with other people are not defined solely within the confines of the market. Morality and decency have their place. If a company is in possession of data that shows their product is harmful and they ignore that data and even withhold it from the government then they're in the wrong. If a company, even with the knowledge that their product is harmful, chooses to affirmatively undertake steps to maximize profitability by undertaking practices to increase their product's utilization they are in the wrong. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have died to date because of opioids. Firm action has to be taken.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  When you or someone you care about are in terrible pain with no relief in sight due to the unwillingness to allow people to make choices for themselves, for their own bodies, then lets talk.
  - pseudolus 8y ago
    The needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people can't be whitewashed by claiming that they were expedient so an unknown quantity of people could be offered pain relief. The addictive nature of oxycontin which pharmaceutical firms were aware of and their relentless efforts market the drug through sales channels can't be overlooked.
  - merpnderp 8y ago
    I couldn't agree more. My wife's doctors were so afraid of the DEA they left her in 6 months of mind boggling agony before she could finally get her back surgery. Never mind her being treated like a criminal every time she went to the office and having to take a drug test.
boomboomsubban 8y ago
Making the drug isn't the issue, it was the marketing of the drug using a variety claims they knew to be untrue. Like that it couldn't be abused, or that it lasted twelve hours.
GeekyBear 8y ago
Defrauding the public is illegal. >Purdue Pharma contended that OxyContin, because of its time-release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than do traditional, shorter-acting painkillers like Percocet or Vicodin. That claim became the linchpin of the most aggressive marketing campaign ever undertaken by a pharmaceutical company for a narcotic painkiller. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html
wonderwonder 8y ago
"When evidence of growing abuse of the drug became clear in the early 2000s, one of them, Richard Sackler, advised pushing blame onto people who had become addicted. “We have to hammer on abusers in every way possible,” Mr. Sackler wrote in an email in 2001, when he was president of the company, Purdue Pharma. “They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.”" Addiction is a physical and biological process as opposed to a willful individual choice and any company that produces drugs and studies their affects on the body should be at the forefront of understanding that. It appears that Sackler willfully chose to paint people addicted to his product in a negative light in pursuit of profits. These are people that are prescribed this medication by their doctors whom they trust. These doctors in turn are pressured / bribed by the pharmaceutical companies to act as dispensaries for these pills to the detriment of the patients they are supposed to be protecting.
coleifer 8y ago
This isn't about prescribing pain meds to those who need them (post op, broken leg, etc). It is about a company making fraudulent claims about the addictiveness of the drugs.
DanBC 8y ago
> Why should doctors and others be able to prevent people from treating their pain? Opioids are not an effective treatment for most people with long term pain. They develop a tolerance for the opioids, and so they end up with an addiction, taking very large quantities of opioids, and still being in pain.
- verylongname 8y ago
  What are the problems with just increasing the dosage over time. This sounds to me like a very reasonable approach to someone with intractable pain.
  - toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
    Toxicity. As your opioid dose increases so does your risk of side effects such as respiratory depression and arrest.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
    Opioids relieve pain. They also suppress your breathing. The pain system in your body gets used to the opioids faster than the breathing system. Over time, the difference between the amount of opioids you need to help the pain and the amount of opioids that make you stop breathing gets smaller and smaller. This has a very predictable bad end result.
maxxxxx 8y ago
You should blame the makers of OxyContin for publishing misleading information and pushing it on people who don't need it and creating a big health crisis that way. The people who really need it are suffering from it. Blame the company and not the people who have to deal with the tens of thousands of opioid deaths.

trimbo 8y ago

The problem is Oxy was overprescribed relative to the addictive features of the drug _because_ the Sacklers falsely claimed that it was less addictive. Doctors believed that and were willing to prescribe a super-strong, easy-to-abuse drug when they would not have done so previously. From the New Yorker article I linked in a top level comment: "Purdue launched OxyContin with a marketing campaign that attempted to counter this attitude and change the prescribing habits of doctors. The company funded research and paid doctors to make the case that concerns about opioid addiction were overblown, and that OxyContin could safely treat an ever-wider range of maladies." 20 years later, I think we know how it turned out. Something like 75% of opioid addicts start with pills.

tomohawk 8y ago
And people who actually need pain management are unable to get it because other people insist they know better. And doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate amounts of pain killers.
- chmod775 8y ago
  > [doctors] insist they know better. Because they probably do. Pain is a stimuli people will do a lot to avoid. But pain also exists for a reason. You generally can't trust people in pain to self medicate. Evolution did not give humans the ability to feel pain just to fuck with them. Pain prevents you from unnecessarily straining damaged body parts, keeping you from harming yourself further and making your condition worse. On painkillers you might hurt yourself doing something as simple as walking up a set of stairs, just because you didn't notice you placed your foot badly.
  - freedomben 8y ago
    Spoken exactly like somebody who has never suffered from chronic, debilitating, relentless pain.
    - chmod775 8y ago
      Instead of textbook logical fallacies would you care to provide any real arguments to support your position that people should essentially be allowed to self-prescribe painkillers? Or at least try to engage me on the points I made?
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  They should know better, that's their job. They are expected to have the knowledge and skills needed to know better. The fact that they willfully disregard that knowledge to satisfy the sales goals of a pharmaceutical salesman is egregious.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  My wife suffered a horrific back injury a few years ago. For medical reasons she had to wait about 6 months for a surgery and all that time the doctors she saw were scared to death to prescribe real pain meds even though she was often in tears from the pain, couldn't bear to walk more than a few feet, and couldn't sleep. My personal story is of a loved one needlessly suffering mind boggling amounts of pain for half a year because the DEA had so scared our doctors. Luckily the surgery was a 100% success and she doesn't need to rely up on the steaming pile of crap that is the DEA's interference in the medical community.
- deogeo 8y ago
  How is this relevant to Purdue Pharma's fraud?
  - topspin 8y ago
    Chronic pain sufferers are denied effective pain killers because providers are under pressure to withhold them because law enforcement is aggressively pursuing providers that 'over prescribe' because abuse of prescription opioids is a 'widespread epidemic' because Purdue Pharma knowingly misled regulators and downplayed abuse because the Sacklers and all the political candidates they supported and all the foundations they funded and all the recipients of Sackler grants and endowments really like those big pharma bucks!
- xoa 8y ago
  >And people who actually need pain management are unable to get it because other people insist they know better. And doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate amounts of pain killers. This is also a real problem, but I think a strong argument can be made that the Sacklers fraud is responsible for it too. A lot of the fear and under-prescription that now happens is a direct result of a strong backlash that itself was in response to the opioid epidemic and the massive damage that resulted. If that had never happened, then rather then the pendulum swinging way too far towards opioids everywhere and then (as is so often the case) right back over the neutral to suspicious of any opioids allowed for anyone anywhere, it could have been more steady state. Doctors would have known how serious the drugs were and been careful with prescriptions all along. Those who really needed them would get them, those who didn't would be directed elsewhere. If it never became such a political cause with so much rightful public interest and anger, then none of would intrude on the medical process. So really the Sacklers may well have screwed people over coming and going. People who would have been fine without were turned into addicts and had their lives ruined, and now people with horrendous chronic pain have to suffer with it and have their lives ruined.

pseudolus 8y ago

Life and our interactions with other people are not defined solely within the confines of the market. Morality and decency have their place. If a company is in possession of data that shows their product is harmful and they ignore that data and even withhold it from the government then they're in the wrong. If a company, even with the knowledge that their product is harmful, chooses to affirmatively undertake steps to maximize profitability by undertaking practices to increase their product's utilization they are in the wrong. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have died to date because of opioids. Firm action has to be taken.

tomohawk 8y ago
When you or someone you care about are in terrible pain with no relief in sight due to the unwillingness to allow people to make choices for themselves, for their own bodies, then lets talk.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  The needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of people can't be whitewashed by claiming that they were expedient so an unknown quantity of people could be offered pain relief. The addictive nature of oxycontin which pharmaceutical firms were aware of and their relentless efforts market the drug through sales channels can't be overlooked.
- merpnderp 8y ago
  I couldn't agree more. My wife's doctors were so afraid of the DEA they left her in 6 months of mind boggling agony before she could finally get her back surgery. Never mind her being treated like a criminal every time she went to the office and having to take a drug test.

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Making the drug isn't the issue, it was the marketing of the drug using a variety claims they knew to be untrue. Like that it couldn't be abused, or that it lasted twelve hours.

GeekyBear 8y ago

Defrauding the public is illegal. >Purdue Pharma contended that OxyContin, because of its time-release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than do traditional, shorter-acting painkillers like Percocet or Vicodin. That claim became the linchpin of the most aggressive marketing campaign ever undertaken by a pharmaceutical company for a narcotic painkiller. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html

wonderwonder 8y ago

"When evidence of growing abuse of the drug became clear in the early 2000s, one of them, Richard Sackler, advised pushing blame onto people who had become addicted. “We have to hammer on abusers in every way possible,” Mr. Sackler wrote in an email in 2001, when he was president of the company, Purdue Pharma. “They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals.”" Addiction is a physical and biological process as opposed to a willful individual choice and any company that produces drugs and studies their affects on the body should be at the forefront of understanding that. It appears that Sackler willfully chose to paint people addicted to his product in a negative light in pursuit of profits. These are people that are prescribed this medication by their doctors whom they trust. These doctors in turn are pressured / bribed by the pharmaceutical companies to act as dispensaries for these pills to the detriment of the patients they are supposed to be protecting.

coleifer 8y ago

This isn't about prescribing pain meds to those who need them (post op, broken leg, etc). It is about a company making fraudulent claims about the addictiveness of the drugs.

DanBC 8y ago

> Why should doctors and others be able to prevent people from treating their pain? Opioids are not an effective treatment for most people with long term pain. They develop a tolerance for the opioids, and so they end up with an addiction, taking very large quantities of opioids, and still being in pain.

verylongname 8y ago
What are the problems with just increasing the dosage over time. This sounds to me like a very reasonable approach to someone with intractable pain.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  Toxicity. As your opioid dose increases so does your risk of side effects such as respiratory depression and arrest.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  Opioids relieve pain. They also suppress your breathing. The pain system in your body gets used to the opioids faster than the breathing system. Over time, the difference between the amount of opioids you need to help the pain and the amount of opioids that make you stop breathing gets smaller and smaller. This has a very predictable bad end result.

maxxxxx 8y ago

You should blame the makers of OxyContin for publishing misleading information and pushing it on people who don't need it and creating a big health crisis that way. The people who really need it are suffering from it. Blame the company and not the people who have to deal with the tens of thousands of opioid deaths.