4 ms·

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

by 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.

by trimbo 8y ago

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.