22 ms·

Opioid crisis: Johnson and Johnson hit by landmark ruling

261 points by onemoresoop 7y ago

mnm1 7y ago
Why not end this stupid drug war, let J&J and other companies like it sell prescriptions to addicts until they are actually ready to stop, provide support to those addicts like counseling, jobs, housing, clean needles, etc. and actually do something to better their lives than sue these companies while addicts are dying left and right because their doctors are legally forced to cut them off from their pure supply of opioids making them turn to impure supplies on the streets and overdose? No, why do the only thing that's ever been shown to work to help people? We couldn't have that. We're the United States of America and if we don't kill suck and helpless addicts and force the rest of the world to kill them as well, then who will? If we don't treat every problem like a war we might have some compassion and we can't have that. Landmark ruling my ass.
- ticmasta 7y ago
  >> let J&J and other companies like it sell prescriptions to addicts Sounds like you're pretty angry, but you realize they didn't "sell to addicts" - they created them with a concentrated, coordinated strategy involving all aspects of the medical system. Letting them carry on business as usual while leaving it to public health and society at large to clean up the mess strikes me as a bizarre suggestion...
- ajxs 7y ago
  In my country at least, I've seen ( from people I've known at various points in my life ) that addicts have no trouble obtaining the real article on the black market. The thing that really alarmed me though was how easily people who were clearly addicts seemed to be able to get legitimate prescriptions for opioids from doctors and dentists. I'm also not sure I agree with allowing opioid addicts a clean supply of prescriptions, but this is clearly a very nuanced problem and I haven't seen any of the data on what works and what doesn't.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    What's the problem with addicts getting opioids from their doctor? If the doctor thinks they should be prescribed opioids for addiction shouldn't the doctor's prescription be honored in the same way a prescription for chemotherapy would? The chemo prescription is much more dangerous. Or should the doctor face 25 years in prison for doing what he thinks is best (our current system) while the addict goes out and robs someone to get drugs that would cost $5 with a prescription? Which way do you think is better for society and the patient?
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I think the moral objection to supporting addictions is quite valid here. We try to provide societal remedies for other similar self-destructive behavior so actively supporting this seems against the societal values we've settled on. I personally think it is callous to so disregard even an addict's well being and it seems like there are decent alternatives we can invest in like counseling and programs to build out social support structures for addicts that are by no means out of reach for the US.
      - mnm1 7y ago
        What is the moral objection to helping people?
        munk-a 7y ago
        Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about a moral objection to feeding their addiction.
- phil248 7y ago
  Some drugs are simply too physically addictive to just release into the 'wild' and let the chips fall where they may. I'll tell you where the chips fall - with huge portions of the country hopelessly addicted to drugs that are extremely difficult to quit. This isn't weed, which isn't physically addictive, or even alcohol, where addictiveness varies from one person to the next. Opioids are addictive across the board. The best comparison is cigarettes. And look at how many people ended up nicotine addicts when we let those chips fall (40% of American adults in the 60's and 70's). And unlike cigarettes, opioids can make you feel really, stupendously good. I agree strongly with legalization of many drugs. But I can't find a way to agree with legalization of the most physically addictive drugs. Those are better handled through strict regulation, ample support and, even though it's a losing battle, some measure to limit supply.
  - __blockcipher__ 7y ago
    Restricting the supply when you have a population of addicts just leads to what the GP talked about - turning to less pure, more dangerous alternatives on the street. I have no love of doctors handing out oxycodone like candy, but we're in serious danger of swinging the pendulum back the other way. I believe we should legalize these drugs, but require their usage to occur under medical supervision, given the risk of respiratory depression. This simultaneously solves the "dirty needle" problem and helps the "city streets full of drug addicts" problem. The only drug I support making illegal for recreational consumption is fentanyl (and others like it) - but frankly even that is probably unnecessary because the rise of fentanyl has happened _because_ of the war on drugs [1]. [1] I have no citation here. I'll note that as someone who has never tried fentanyl (besides being given it by a doctor as part of a cocktail to put me under as many people have experienced), it's said to not have much recreational value, so take that for what little it's worth. Rather, it is commonly added to other drugs like heroin and pressed alprazolam primarily because high potency drugs are easier to smuggle than low potency drugs. For example, a gram of LSD is trivial to smuggle and is equivalent to $10,000 hits of LSD, with an end retail value of $100,000 in many markets although naturally not priced that way when sold in bulk], whereas smuggling the equivalent value of weed would mean transporting on the order of 10,000 grams or more.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Oh I can answer that! Because J&J would isolate this responsibility into a subsidiary and spin it off, it may be difficult to do and maaaaybe some of the companies spinning these subsidiaries off would get dragged through the mud - but spinning liabilities off into separate companies is a time honored tradition[1]. 1. @see just about any superfund site related bankruptcy... like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-Picher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-Picher
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
The danger of all these opioid rulings is that it might get a lot more difficult for people who suffer from pain that needs opioids to actually get them. After seeing these rulings, what company in its right mind would actually manufacture opioid pills any more? Doctors are going to be very, very, conservative about how they prescribe.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  How does the prescription rate in the US compare to other countries? When growing up in Germany i never heard of opioids being prescribed besides maybe cancer patients. But in the US I was always given plenty of opioids for even pretty small problems. A while ago I had to get really serious with my girlfriend after only two weeks of them because she already couldn’t handle the withdrawal.
  - hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    I've seen many times that doctors in the US are all too happy to prescribe medication to deal with pain but give exceedingly little instruction or support for how to go off these addictive medications.
  - ender341341 7y ago
    ~15 years ago they handed out prescriptions pretty easily. Most reputable places are pretty stingy with them now though. Last time I was in for pain they gave me a prescription for ibuprofen.
- btilly 7y ago
  The real problem isn't in the manufacture of opioid pills, it is in false advertising around them. In particular don't advertise as 2x a day with the advice to increase the prescription if there are withdrawal effects, when the correct prescription is to go to 3x a day and do not increase the dosage. The false advertising is a recipe to increase sales but create a serious drug addiction that will need to be supplemented somehow.
- uptown 7y ago
phjesusthatguy3 7y ago
Sued for $17 Billion, ordered to pay 1/34th of that. In State court, by The State. I don't know if that counts as a "landmark ruling", but maybe it will. We'll have to wait and see if anyone else crashes up on the rocks.
- ajxs 7y ago
  I had the same thought. I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them?
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states. It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though. EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.
    - staticautomatic 7y ago
      The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.
      - henryfjordan 7y ago
        "precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.
        staticautomatic 7y ago
        This particular case has not set such a precedent.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
A while ago I read a book about what they did with epogen. They definitely deserve punishment but I am afraid this will work out like the banks where the fine is just cost of doing business and not deterrent.
whymsicalburito 7y ago
And their stock is up in after hours... Doesn't seem to be much of a victory considering a bigger fine was already priced in.
- parsimo2010 7y ago
  Exactly. This landmark ruling is the wrong way, it shows that pharmaceutical companies can enable the manslaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and pay relatively little in fines. Certainly less than the usually well-informed stock market was expecting. The pharma CEOs are gonna use this landmark to help them navigate to a bigger private yacht and faster private jet.
dlphn___xyz 7y ago
why didnt purdue pharma face any charges?
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  1. This was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. 2. "Why Was Johnson & Johnson the Only Opioid Maker on Trial in Oklahoma?" Other states are suing a range of drug makers, distributors and retailers. Here are three reasons Johnson & Johnson was the only company on trial in Oklahoma. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/health/opioids-johnson-and-johnson-oklahoma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/health/opioids-johnson-an...
JDulin 7y ago
These court-cases have two worthy objectives: Correcting this behavior in pharmaceutical co.s in the future and compensating the states & people harmed in the past. Incentivizing restraint and honest advertising is only possible by punishing executives, personally [1]. Especially those in sales. And fair compensation is many, many times this number. So I fail to see how this is anything other than an injustice, and fear that it will take the pressure off of other court cases against opioid sellers. Reading the book "Dreamland" [2] on the opioid crisis changed my life. Even as someone from a part of Ohio hurt by opioids, it's hard to imagine the venality of these people, the callousness of the Mexican drug dealers who swoop in behind them, and the magnitude of suffering their perfect storm concocts. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19669453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19669453 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic/dp/1511336404 https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidem...
- refurb 7y ago
  Considering nobody can get these drugs unless a physician prescribes them, when are we going to see a wholesale round up of doctors? So far it’s been a few high profile cases, but obviously the problem runs deeper than that. And J&J is by no means a major opioid manufacturer. As the article states, their drugs were less than 1% of all prescription opioids. I think J&J got hit because they have deep pockets.
  - shortandsweet 7y ago
    Doctors already are being rounded up. That's like going after the atreet dealer. Have to go for the head.
  - joering2 7y ago
    They are scapegoats. I just read majority of case files - there is not much of a proof that JJ did anything more than what law allowed them to do! Tune as old as Congress itself - you think a corporation acts immorally? Change the damn law! Don’t expect for-profit corporation to have a soul. Finally - the reasoning here should he similar to gun and a murderer. If guns don’t pull triggers but people do, then similarily here only responsible people should be these that abused said drug, especially when it was manufactured and sold accordingly with laws and doctor’s prescription.
refurb 7y ago
The Atlantic has an interesting article that claims the risk of addiction for ordinary folks isn’t that high. What became the popular but essentially dubious interpretation of the trends was that the typical opioid victim was a patient who received Oxycontin, Percocet, or Vicodin from her doctor for a tooth extraction or sprained ankle and then stumbled into addiction. In fact, only 22 to 35 percent of “misusers” of pain medication report receiving drugs from their doctor [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/what-america-got-wrong-about-opioid-crisis/595090/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/what-ameri...
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  It is possible that some facts got distorted, but by looking at the big picture it does not look too good any way you look at it
- KnightHawk3 7y ago
  Worth noting she works for a conservative think tank, so I am not sure I am going to take her at face value for defending pharmaceutical corporations...
  - refurb 7y ago
    Did you have a particular data point you’re trying to refute? Or are you just trying to dismiss the entire article because of her political views?
    - KnightHawk3 7y ago
      The fact it tries to downplay that millions of people are dying, and continue to die, ignoring that there is direct correlation between number of pills dumped in a state and deaths.
      - refurb 7y ago
        Down playing it how? Can you quote the relevant text? The author acknowledges it's a crisis, but simply asks questions about the true cause.
8bitsrule 7y ago
Tens of thousands of US drug users (victims) get jailtime. Citizen traffickers (perps): serious jailtime. Corporate traffickers (perps) get fined for 'nuisance'. The Arthur Anderson firm got deep-sixed for felony obstruction of justice. Enron's Ken Lay was convicted of 10 counts of wire and bank fraud. (Skilling just got out of jail.) Tens of thousands of dead Americans: 'nuisance'? I can think of only a couple of 'justifications' for the disparity.
- spamizbad 7y ago
  Arthur Anderson and Enron harmed wealthy, powerful people. Corporate pusher's victims were just Regular Joes. Who the law protects and who the law binds aren't always in sync.
  - trimbo 7y ago
    > Arthur Anderson and Enron harmed wealthy, powerful people. Not true. Probably the biggest losers for Enron were the rank-and-file employees of the company. Not only did they lose their jobs, but more than half of the Enron employees' 401k was invested in Enron stock. And Enron happened to freeze the 401k plan at the time where the stock started to drop and people could have sold. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/22/business/employees-retirement-plan-is-a-victim-as-enron-tumbles.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/22/business/employees-retire...
    - distant_hat 7y ago
      That they harmed rank-and-file is besides the point. The important point is they harmed wealthy, powerful people.
    - sjtindell 7y ago
      It is true, lots of people were harmed, including the rank and file. But “rank and file” usually calls up images of honest, blue collar folks and factory floors. According to Smartest Guys In The Room, the rank and file of Enron were mostly MBAs in thousand dollar suits with a reputation for utter ruthlessness and extravagant pay. The electrical utility employees in that article were not truly Enron employees.
weiming 7y ago
A friend recently had a minor procedure (he took a couple of ibuprofens after and that was all). But the doctor gave him about a dozen of narcotic pills that eventually ended up in the trash. Another friend had a persistent cough getting over a cold and was given oxycodone in liquid form "to help sleep." She never took it. Both of these were at major facilities in the Bay Area. Thinking at least some of the blame falls on the docs.
- cgsmith 7y ago
  I'd like to blame the docs but I am always reminded of saying from my parents: "Only you can be your own advocate for your ____".
  - smt88 7y ago
    No, you can blame the docs. You can't be your own medical advocate because you can't just decide to go to medical school. You pay a doctor to have your best interests in mind and give you advice. You have no way of knowing whether the advice is good. When the doctor is misinformed, or their incentive is to please pharmaceutical companies, your trust is betrayed without any warning. My friend is a psychiatrist and says that any night of any week, she can go out and get a $100+ meal free from pharma reps. Organized meals have speakers that are marketing drugs to them. Informal meals just have the sales rep saying the same talking points. If anyone thinks she or her coworkers can make unbiased decisions about what the describe, they're very naive.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  Medicine is one of those weird cases where "the customer is always right" doesn't hold up.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    In corporate medicine, the patient is not the customer - the patient is the livestock that's being farmed.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
GarrisonPrime 7y ago
Regardless of the question of whether or not J&J is liable or should be find, I'll just point out this slap on the wrist is basically nothing. Such judgements are factored into large corporations' plans from the start. The politicians get to look good for "doing something", the company gets to be absolved of blame, and they're only out a small percentage of their profits.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Iv 7y ago
"The company's share price rose following the ruling as investors had been expecting a much bigger fine, says BBC North America correspondent Peter Bowes."
jijji 7y ago
it really seems like a slippery slope to be fining companies for selling products that are tightly regulated to begin with. next they will apply the can-spam act to billboard and television advertisers, which might not be too far off and equally misapplied.
amin226 7y ago
http://bit.ly/2Htn2Mw http://bit.ly/2Htn2Mw
lowbloodsugar 7y ago
If a corporation has free speech, then a corporation can go to jail.
Wh1skey 7y ago
Government says it's ok for Johnson and Johnson to sell opioids. Government waits until the shit hits the fan then says, "Hey you shouldn't have sold those opioids! Hey everyone, can you believe this big company is selling opioids?!" What a joke.
elthor89 7y ago
It’s good that J&J are being fined for false advertising. What I do not feel is completely justified in this story is that the blame is put solely on the pharmaceutical. Yes they played their part. They most likely knew how addicting their drug is from day 1 during their clinical trials. Why is direct marketing to consumers in the USA even allowed? Why are pharmaceutical companies still allowed to wine and dine doctors to persuade them to prescribe their drugs? What about the other players? Why do doctors even prescribe these heavy drugs, despite knowing that there are serious addictions risks? I doubt doctors would prescribe heroin if someone has pain. Why do patients insist on getting the heavy drugs to numb pain instead of taking or accepting doctors advice and take a less strong pain killer and accept some pain. I think we should have a good look at how the healthcare system is organized and scrutinize all players.
- JanSt 7y ago
  American experience with painkillers in Germany after surgery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTMRrJrM7Y&t=7m31s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTMRrJrM7Y&t=7m31s
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    Insightful and true. In America it's practically taboo to tell someone they don't need a thing and the tolerance for any discomfort is extremely low.
    - Nasrudith 7y ago
      As it should be in my opinion - admittedly colored by own experiences and phobias. Hospitalization is a leading cause of PTSD. That "discomfort" can leave people pretty traumatized and messed -all because of other's puritan desires. If you washed someone's wounds in salt water when there were alternatives it would be rightfully regarded as sadism - why the tolerance for unnecessary pain and suffering otherwise?
      - decoyworker 7y ago
malicioususer11 7y ago
the fucking baby shampoo company? wtf???
ptah 7y ago
It might be an idea that all pharmaceutical companies with addictive products have to "donate" a percentage of gross sales to addiction treatment programmes. Also doctors that prescribe them have to also make a proportionate donation to avoid overprescription.
benj111 7y ago
As a non American can I just confirm my understanding? JJ makes pain killers, markets them, doctors prescribe them (?), patients get addicted. I have trouble understanding why this is primarily JJs fault. Either Drs should be looking after their patients, or these drugs need to be prescription only, if not already. There seems to be a big elephant that's getting ignored here...
- DanBC 7y ago
  Drug companies misrepresented the research around addiction; they aggressively sold the medication to doctors and patients; they continued these sales even when they had data showing large amounts of misuse in a region. People seem to think there can only be one point of failure, one organisation or person to blame. The opioid crisis is complex and many things failed. You're right that doctors should not have prescribed as many opioids, but that doesn't absolve the makers or the insurance companies.
  - badpun 7y ago
    These companies usually operate on a global scale and yet the opioid crisis is limited to the US. Did the companies not try pulling the same tricks (misinformation, ignoring warnings) in other countries?
  - benj111 7y ago
    There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of fraud in the linked article? Nevertheless if Drs are relying on companies for unbiased data, that again seems like that should be addressed. I'm not saying there's one point of failure, note in my prior reply I wrote "primarily" their fault. But Drs are the professionals here, they have a duty towards their patients. If a Dr prescribes something for me, I expect them to have weighed up the pros and cons. If Amazon recommends something I have no such expectation.
- blauekapelle 7y ago
  the idea is that they were falsely marketed to doctors as being non-addictive, which meant docs then prescribed them without concern for potential addiction - ie not helping the patient stop the drug, prescribing them for too long. in the UK you can buy cocodomol, which is an opioid painkiller over the counter. but it has huge text reading "no more than 3 days usage" becaues of addiction risk. it's like JJ said to docs, we got cocodomol, but you can prescribe them for months because we made them non-addictive, and that's the lie.
mirimir 7y ago
Plaintiffs ought to be suing federal and state governments for their puritanical and destructive drug laws. It is arguable that manufacturers promoted addictive drugs irresponsibly. And that physicians prescribed them irresponsibly. But I doubt that most addicts overdosed with opioids obtained under prescription. Most likely overdosed on illegal opioids that they resorted to, after their prescriptions got cut off.
BurnGpuBurn 7y ago
Johnson and Johnson annual revenue: 80bn Fine for causing a substantial amount of those "400,000 overdose deaths": 0.5bn Yeah, I'm totally convinced that they'll behave from now on.
lazylizard 7y ago
Chinese saying. Kill one to warn hundred.

261 points by onemoresoop 7y ago

mnm1 7y ago

Why not end this stupid drug war, let J&J and other companies like it sell prescriptions to addicts until they are actually ready to stop, provide support to those addicts like counseling, jobs, housing, clean needles, etc. and actually do something to better their lives than sue these companies while addicts are dying left and right because their doctors are legally forced to cut them off from their pure supply of opioids making them turn to impure supplies on the streets and overdose? No, why do the only thing that's ever been shown to work to help people? We couldn't have that. We're the United States of America and if we don't kill suck and helpless addicts and force the rest of the world to kill them as well, then who will? If we don't treat every problem like a war we might have some compassion and we can't have that. Landmark ruling my ass.

ticmasta 7y ago
>> let J&J and other companies like it sell prescriptions to addicts Sounds like you're pretty angry, but you realize they didn't "sell to addicts" - they created them with a concentrated, coordinated strategy involving all aspects of the medical system. Letting them carry on business as usual while leaving it to public health and society at large to clean up the mess strikes me as a bizarre suggestion...
ajxs 7y ago
In my country at least, I've seen ( from people I've known at various points in my life ) that addicts have no trouble obtaining the real article on the black market. The thing that really alarmed me though was how easily people who were clearly addicts seemed to be able to get legitimate prescriptions for opioids from doctors and dentists. I'm also not sure I agree with allowing opioid addicts a clean supply of prescriptions, but this is clearly a very nuanced problem and I haven't seen any of the data on what works and what doesn't.
- mnm1 7y ago
  What's the problem with addicts getting opioids from their doctor? If the doctor thinks they should be prescribed opioids for addiction shouldn't the doctor's prescription be honored in the same way a prescription for chemotherapy would? The chemo prescription is much more dangerous. Or should the doctor face 25 years in prison for doing what he thinks is best (our current system) while the addict goes out and robs someone to get drugs that would cost $5 with a prescription? Which way do you think is better for society and the patient?
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I think the moral objection to supporting addictions is quite valid here. We try to provide societal remedies for other similar self-destructive behavior so actively supporting this seems against the societal values we've settled on. I personally think it is callous to so disregard even an addict's well being and it seems like there are decent alternatives we can invest in like counseling and programs to build out social support structures for addicts that are by no means out of reach for the US.
    - mnm1 7y ago
      What is the moral objection to helping people?
      - munk-a 7y ago
        Sorry, to clarify, I'm talking about a moral objection to feeding their addiction.
phil248 7y ago
Some drugs are simply too physically addictive to just release into the 'wild' and let the chips fall where they may. I'll tell you where the chips fall - with huge portions of the country hopelessly addicted to drugs that are extremely difficult to quit. This isn't weed, which isn't physically addictive, or even alcohol, where addictiveness varies from one person to the next. Opioids are addictive across the board. The best comparison is cigarettes. And look at how many people ended up nicotine addicts when we let those chips fall (40% of American adults in the 60's and 70's). And unlike cigarettes, opioids can make you feel really, stupendously good. I agree strongly with legalization of many drugs. But I can't find a way to agree with legalization of the most physically addictive drugs. Those are better handled through strict regulation, ample support and, even though it's a losing battle, some measure to limit supply.
- __blockcipher__ 7y ago
  Restricting the supply when you have a population of addicts just leads to what the GP talked about - turning to less pure, more dangerous alternatives on the street. I have no love of doctors handing out oxycodone like candy, but we're in serious danger of swinging the pendulum back the other way. I believe we should legalize these drugs, but require their usage to occur under medical supervision, given the risk of respiratory depression. This simultaneously solves the "dirty needle" problem and helps the "city streets full of drug addicts" problem. The only drug I support making illegal for recreational consumption is fentanyl (and others like it) - but frankly even that is probably unnecessary because the rise of fentanyl has happened _because_ of the war on drugs [1]. [1] I have no citation here. I'll note that as someone who has never tried fentanyl (besides being given it by a doctor as part of a cocktail to put me under as many people have experienced), it's said to not have much recreational value, so take that for what little it's worth. Rather, it is commonly added to other drugs like heroin and pressed alprazolam primarily because high potency drugs are easier to smuggle than low potency drugs. For example, a gram of LSD is trivial to smuggle and is equivalent to $10,000 hits of LSD, with an end retail value of $100,000 in many markets although naturally not priced that way when sold in bulk], whereas smuggling the equivalent value of weed would mean transporting on the order of 10,000 grams or more.
munk-a 7y ago
Oh I can answer that! Because J&J would isolate this responsibility into a subsidiary and spin it off, it may be difficult to do and maaaaybe some of the companies spinning these subsidiaries off would get dragged through the mud - but spinning liabilities off into separate companies is a time honored tradition[1]. 1. @see just about any superfund site related bankruptcy... like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-Picher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle-Picher

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

The danger of all these opioid rulings is that it might get a lot more difficult for people who suffer from pain that needs opioids to actually get them. After seeing these rulings, what company in its right mind would actually manufacture opioid pills any more? Doctors are going to be very, very, conservative about how they prescribe.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
How does the prescription rate in the US compare to other countries? When growing up in Germany i never heard of opioids being prescribed besides maybe cancer patients. But in the US I was always given plenty of opioids for even pretty small problems. A while ago I had to get really serious with my girlfriend after only two weeks of them because she already couldn’t handle the withdrawal.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  I've seen many times that doctors in the US are all too happy to prescribe medication to deal with pain but give exceedingly little instruction or support for how to go off these addictive medications.
- ender341341 7y ago
  ~15 years ago they handed out prescriptions pretty easily. Most reputable places are pretty stingy with them now though. Last time I was in for pain they gave me a prescription for ibuprofen.
btilly 7y ago
The real problem isn't in the manufacture of opioid pills, it is in false advertising around them. In particular don't advertise as 2x a day with the advice to increase the prescription if there are withdrawal effects, when the correct prescription is to go to 3x a day and do not increase the dosage. The false advertising is a recipe to increase sales but create a serious drug addiction that will need to be supplemented somehow.
uptown 7y ago

phjesusthatguy3 7y ago

Sued for $17 Billion, ordered to pay 1/34th of that. In State court, by The State. I don't know if that counts as a "landmark ruling", but maybe it will. We'll have to wait and see if anyone else crashes up on the rocks.

ajxs 7y ago
I had the same thought. I'm not an American, and not a lawyer, but doesn't the ruling in this case count as precedent that will allow others states to pursue lawsuits against them?
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  This was our lowest level of state court. I don't think it even counts as precedent in other courts in Oklahoma, though it can probably be viewed as persuasive. This ruling has no bearing in other states. It does give a good roadmap for how to sue and win against J&J though. EDIT: There might be a way to use this case as a basis for collateral estoppel, meaning that J&J would have a harder time disputing the liability (since they were decided to be liable in this case) but I'm not sure if that applies across state lines.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    The "precedent" at issue is not about the ruling as a matter of common law but as an indicator of verdicts to come.
    - henryfjordan 7y ago
      "precedent" is a term of art in law. It strictly means another court HAS to make the same ruling given the same/similar facts.
      - staticautomatic 7y ago
        This particular case has not set such a precedent.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

A while ago I read a book about what they did with epogen. They definitely deserve punishment but I am afraid this will work out like the banks where the fine is just cost of doing business and not deterrent.

whymsicalburito 7y ago

And their stock is up in after hours... Doesn't seem to be much of a victory considering a bigger fine was already priced in.

parsimo2010 7y ago
Exactly. This landmark ruling is the wrong way, it shows that pharmaceutical companies can enable the manslaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and pay relatively little in fines. Certainly less than the usually well-informed stock market was expecting. The pharma CEOs are gonna use this landmark to help them navigate to a bigger private yacht and faster private jet.

dlphn___xyz 7y ago

why didnt purdue pharma face any charges?

dredmorbius 7y ago
1. This was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal trial. 2. "Why Was Johnson & Johnson the Only Opioid Maker on Trial in Oklahoma?" Other states are suing a range of drug makers, distributors and retailers. Here are three reasons Johnson & Johnson was the only company on trial in Oklahoma. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/health/opioids-johnson-and-johnson-oklahoma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/health/opioids-johnson-an...

JDulin 7y ago

These court-cases have two worthy objectives: Correcting this behavior in pharmaceutical co.s in the future and compensating the states & people harmed in the past. Incentivizing restraint and honest advertising is only possible by punishing executives, personally [1]. Especially those in sales. And fair compensation is many, many times this number. So I fail to see how this is anything other than an injustice, and fear that it will take the pressure off of other court cases against opioid sellers. Reading the book "Dreamland" [2] on the opioid crisis changed my life. Even as someone from a part of Ohio hurt by opioids, it's hard to imagine the venality of these people, the callousness of the Mexican drug dealers who swoop in behind them, and the magnitude of suffering their perfect storm concocts. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19669453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19669453 [2] https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidemic/dp/1511336404 https://www.amazon.com/Dreamland-True-Americas-Opiate-Epidem...

refurb 7y ago
Considering nobody can get these drugs unless a physician prescribes them, when are we going to see a wholesale round up of doctors? So far it’s been a few high profile cases, but obviously the problem runs deeper than that. And J&J is by no means a major opioid manufacturer. As the article states, their drugs were less than 1% of all prescription opioids. I think J&J got hit because they have deep pockets.
- shortandsweet 7y ago
  Doctors already are being rounded up. That's like going after the atreet dealer. Have to go for the head.
- joering2 7y ago
  They are scapegoats. I just read majority of case files - there is not much of a proof that JJ did anything more than what law allowed them to do! Tune as old as Congress itself - you think a corporation acts immorally? Change the damn law! Don’t expect for-profit corporation to have a soul. Finally - the reasoning here should he similar to gun and a murderer. If guns don’t pull triggers but people do, then similarily here only responsible people should be these that abused said drug, especially when it was manufactured and sold accordingly with laws and doctor’s prescription.

refurb 7y ago

The Atlantic has an interesting article that claims the risk of addiction for ordinary folks isn’t that high. What became the popular but essentially dubious interpretation of the trends was that the typical opioid victim was a patient who received Oxycontin, Percocet, or Vicodin from her doctor for a tooth extraction or sprained ankle and then stumbled into addiction. In fact, only 22 to 35 percent of “misusers” of pain medication report receiving drugs from their doctor [1]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/what-america-got-wrong-about-opioid-crisis/595090/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/what-ameri...

onemoresoop 7y ago
It is possible that some facts got distorted, but by looking at the big picture it does not look too good any way you look at it
KnightHawk3 7y ago
Worth noting she works for a conservative think tank, so I am not sure I am going to take her at face value for defending pharmaceutical corporations...
- refurb 7y ago
  Did you have a particular data point you’re trying to refute? Or are you just trying to dismiss the entire article because of her political views?
  - KnightHawk3 7y ago
    The fact it tries to downplay that millions of people are dying, and continue to die, ignoring that there is direct correlation between number of pills dumped in a state and deaths.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Down playing it how? Can you quote the relevant text? The author acknowledges it's a crisis, but simply asks questions about the true cause.

8bitsrule 7y ago

Tens of thousands of US drug users (victims) get jailtime. Citizen traffickers (perps): serious jailtime. Corporate traffickers (perps) get fined for 'nuisance'. The Arthur Anderson firm got deep-sixed for felony obstruction of justice. Enron's Ken Lay was convicted of 10 counts of wire and bank fraud. (Skilling just got out of jail.) Tens of thousands of dead Americans: 'nuisance'? I can think of only a couple of 'justifications' for the disparity.

spamizbad 7y ago
Arthur Anderson and Enron harmed wealthy, powerful people. Corporate pusher's victims were just Regular Joes. Who the law protects and who the law binds aren't always in sync.
- trimbo 7y ago
  > Arthur Anderson and Enron harmed wealthy, powerful people. Not true. Probably the biggest losers for Enron were the rank-and-file employees of the company. Not only did they lose their jobs, but more than half of the Enron employees' 401k was invested in Enron stock. And Enron happened to freeze the 401k plan at the time where the stock started to drop and people could have sold. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/22/business/employees-retirement-plan-is-a-victim-as-enron-tumbles.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/22/business/employees-retire...
  - distant_hat 7y ago
    That they harmed rank-and-file is besides the point. The important point is they harmed wealthy, powerful people.
  - sjtindell 7y ago
    It is true, lots of people were harmed, including the rank and file. But “rank and file” usually calls up images of honest, blue collar folks and factory floors. According to Smartest Guys In The Room, the rank and file of Enron were mostly MBAs in thousand dollar suits with a reputation for utter ruthlessness and extravagant pay. The electrical utility employees in that article were not truly Enron employees.

weiming 7y ago

A friend recently had a minor procedure (he took a couple of ibuprofens after and that was all). But the doctor gave him about a dozen of narcotic pills that eventually ended up in the trash. Another friend had a persistent cough getting over a cold and was given oxycodone in liquid form "to help sleep." She never took it. Both of these were at major facilities in the Bay Area. Thinking at least some of the blame falls on the docs.

cgsmith 7y ago
I'd like to blame the docs but I am always reminded of saying from my parents: "Only you can be your own advocate for your ____".
- smt88 7y ago
  No, you can blame the docs. You can't be your own medical advocate because you can't just decide to go to medical school. You pay a doctor to have your best interests in mind and give you advice. You have no way of knowing whether the advice is good. When the doctor is misinformed, or their incentive is to please pharmaceutical companies, your trust is betrayed without any warning. My friend is a psychiatrist and says that any night of any week, she can go out and get a $100+ meal free from pharma reps. Organized meals have speakers that are marketing drugs to them. Informal meals just have the sales rep saying the same talking points. If anyone thinks she or her coworkers can make unbiased decisions about what the describe, they're very naive.
paulddraper 7y ago
Medicine is one of those weird cases where "the customer is always right" doesn't hold up.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  In corporate medicine, the patient is not the customer - the patient is the livestock that's being farmed.
ceejayoz 7y ago

GarrisonPrime 7y ago

Regardless of the question of whether or not J&J is liable or should be find, I'll just point out this slap on the wrist is basically nothing. Such judgements are factored into large corporations' plans from the start. The politicians get to look good for "doing something", the company gets to be absolved of blame, and they're only out a small percentage of their profits.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Iv 7y ago

"The company's share price rose following the ruling as investors had been expecting a much bigger fine, says BBC North America correspondent Peter Bowes."

jijji 7y ago

it really seems like a slippery slope to be fining companies for selling products that are tightly regulated to begin with. next they will apply the can-spam act to billboard and television advertisers, which might not be too far off and equally misapplied.

amin226 7y ago

http://bit.ly/2Htn2Mw http://bit.ly/2Htn2Mw

lowbloodsugar 7y ago

If a corporation has free speech, then a corporation can go to jail.

Wh1skey 7y ago

Government says it's ok for Johnson and Johnson to sell opioids. Government waits until the shit hits the fan then says, "Hey you shouldn't have sold those opioids! Hey everyone, can you believe this big company is selling opioids?!" What a joke.

elthor89 7y ago

It’s good that J&J are being fined for false advertising. What I do not feel is completely justified in this story is that the blame is put solely on the pharmaceutical. Yes they played their part. They most likely knew how addicting their drug is from day 1 during their clinical trials. Why is direct marketing to consumers in the USA even allowed? Why are pharmaceutical companies still allowed to wine and dine doctors to persuade them to prescribe their drugs? What about the other players? Why do doctors even prescribe these heavy drugs, despite knowing that there are serious addictions risks? I doubt doctors would prescribe heroin if someone has pain. Why do patients insist on getting the heavy drugs to numb pain instead of taking or accepting doctors advice and take a less strong pain killer and accept some pain. I think we should have a good look at how the healthcare system is organized and scrutinize all players.

JanSt 7y ago
American experience with painkillers in Germany after surgery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTMRrJrM7Y&t=7m31s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfTMRrJrM7Y&t=7m31s
- decoyworker 7y ago
  Insightful and true. In America it's practically taboo to tell someone they don't need a thing and the tolerance for any discomfort is extremely low.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    As it should be in my opinion - admittedly colored by own experiences and phobias. Hospitalization is a leading cause of PTSD. That "discomfort" can leave people pretty traumatized and messed -all because of other's puritan desires. If you washed someone's wounds in salt water when there were alternatives it would be rightfully regarded as sadism - why the tolerance for unnecessary pain and suffering otherwise?
    - decoyworker 7y ago

malicioususer11 7y ago

the fucking baby shampoo company? wtf???

ptah 7y ago

It might be an idea that all pharmaceutical companies with addictive products have to "donate" a percentage of gross sales to addiction treatment programmes. Also doctors that prescribe them have to also make a proportionate donation to avoid overprescription.

benj111 7y ago

As a non American can I just confirm my understanding? JJ makes pain killers, markets them, doctors prescribe them (?), patients get addicted. I have trouble understanding why this is primarily JJs fault. Either Drs should be looking after their patients, or these drugs need to be prescription only, if not already. There seems to be a big elephant that's getting ignored here...

DanBC 7y ago
Drug companies misrepresented the research around addiction; they aggressively sold the medication to doctors and patients; they continued these sales even when they had data showing large amounts of misuse in a region. People seem to think there can only be one point of failure, one organisation or person to blame. The opioid crisis is complex and many things failed. You're right that doctors should not have prescribed as many opioids, but that doesn't absolve the makers or the insurance companies.
- badpun 7y ago
  These companies usually operate on a global scale and yet the opioid crisis is limited to the US. Did the companies not try pulling the same tricks (misinformation, ignoring warnings) in other countries?
- benj111 7y ago
  There doesn't seem to be any suggestion of fraud in the linked article? Nevertheless if Drs are relying on companies for unbiased data, that again seems like that should be addressed. I'm not saying there's one point of failure, note in my prior reply I wrote "primarily" their fault. But Drs are the professionals here, they have a duty towards their patients. If a Dr prescribes something for me, I expect them to have weighed up the pros and cons. If Amazon recommends something I have no such expectation.
blauekapelle 7y ago
the idea is that they were falsely marketed to doctors as being non-addictive, which meant docs then prescribed them without concern for potential addiction - ie not helping the patient stop the drug, prescribing them for too long. in the UK you can buy cocodomol, which is an opioid painkiller over the counter. but it has huge text reading "no more than 3 days usage" becaues of addiction risk. it's like JJ said to docs, we got cocodomol, but you can prescribe them for months because we made them non-addictive, and that's the lie.

mirimir 7y ago

Plaintiffs ought to be suing federal and state governments for their puritanical and destructive drug laws. It is arguable that manufacturers promoted addictive drugs irresponsibly. And that physicians prescribed them irresponsibly. But I doubt that most addicts overdosed with opioids obtained under prescription. Most likely overdosed on illegal opioids that they resorted to, after their prescriptions got cut off.

BurnGpuBurn 7y ago

Johnson and Johnson annual revenue: 80bn Fine for causing a substantial amount of those "400,000 overdose deaths": 0.5bn Yeah, I'm totally convinced that they'll behave from now on.

lazylizard 7y ago

Chinese saying. Kill one to warn hundred.