8 ms·

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 p

• 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.
    • ceejayoz 7y ago
      Guns are a public policy aberration in this regard. Lawn darts killed one kid and got banned. Cars got forced to be safer with seat belts and airbags, with the industry kicking and screaming throughout.
      • Zenst 7y ago
        You right and to contextualise this - do gun shops who sold the guns that did the crime make them as guilty when the gun shop followed the law. Case with most (sure some exceptions) Doctors, they prescribe the drugs, the patient abused them or what has transpired is the patient did what the doctor said, just couldn't get off those drugs and that is were doctors may well be foul. Equally they may not have the tools or resources to cater for such instances. After all addiction treatment is often a waiting list a World away for many in that position. But would banning opioids have more positive than negative - who knows. Hence your gun analogy fits this situation perfectly. Though some would say banning guns would be easier than banning opioids. Equally most things banned, end up shifting them into criminal distribution and quality. Though I've yet to find a lawn dart dealer, I dare say that somebody somewhere sells them illegally - nature of banning something alas. Hmm, just had a quick look and Amazon has many lawn darts for sale :(.
        • ceejayoz 7y ago
          > do gun shops who sold the guns that did the crime make them as guilty when the gun shop followed the law That depends. We had a case locally where a shop was repeatedly robbed, made little effort to improve security, and wound up shut down for it. https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/08/16/deputies-35-40-firearms-stolen-parma-gun-store-chinappis/1012239002/ https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/08/16/d... > As a result, MCSO investigators obtained a court order to close down the business and take control of its inventory, which Baxter described as "hundreds of guns and pallets of ammunition." > "For more than a decade, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office has attempted to work with the owner to improve security for his facility, Baxter said. For clarity: Metal-tipped lawn darts were banned. You can get a foam Nerf one now, sure.
  • Scoundreller 7y ago
    > And J&J is by no means a major opioid manufacturer The had the non-hospital fentanyl market cornered for a while. Their patches were only for chronic use by patients already tolerant to opioids. Even if they had less than 1% of the market, they would have had a much larger proportion of the high-dose market, where mortality risk ramps up.
  • aphextim 7y ago
    You can arrest the dealers all you want, but to actually stop the problem you need to stop the suppliers/cartel.
• ehsankia 7y ago
  While the number seems small (still much bigger than what Purdue and others ended up paying by settling early instead of dragging it), it's worth noting that it's only in one state. They could potentially all go through the same process in all states, as this was a widespread issue. But even then I agree that it still doesn't come close to the amount of pain and suffering they caused.
  • tyingq 7y ago
    I wonder if it's limited to all states. Feels like a door is open for individuals, and perhaps other things like cities, counties, etc. I'm imagining some sort of J&J all-hands-on-deck meeting tommorow.
  • acomjean 7y ago
    And yet somehow opioids are still legal. They've had a Opoid conference in Boston the past few years. http://opioidconference.org http://opioidconference.org This seems to be an attempt by the states to reign in egregiously bad behavior by these businesses/ doctors that are supposed to be federally regulated (which frankly seemed to be lacking). Opioids things seem addictive enough to warrant some review on if there aren't other pain-killers that can replace them completely perhaps excepting in a few exceptional circumstances.
    • goatlover 7y ago
      Because making a substance illegal has worked so well!
    • deelowe 7y ago
      Opeoids work when used correctly. No one is arguing that they should be banned. Doctors just need to not be lied to so that they don't prescribe highly addictive substances thinking they aren't.
    • adrianN 7y ago
      Why would you want to make them illegal? What do you plan to give terminally ill cancer patients or people with extensive burns for example?
• zaroth 7y ago
  Keep in mind that the magnitude of the fine cannot be known ahead of time. These Fight Club-esque arguments that corporate civil liability can not possibly curtail bad corporate conduct ignore the fact that killing people carries an almost unbounded punitive penalty in front of a jury. The confidence interval on the damages is very large, which makes doing things with practically unbounded civil liability actually dangerous for companies, and actually deters behavior which might appear otherwise profitable. Considering the A) relative minor role that J&J played compared to the other original defendants, B) the relatively small size of the aggrieved population compared to the potential population with a cause of action, and C) the particular law they brought suit under... this is in fact a pretty spectacular result overall for the State. Really the bigger question is why the State settled with the other defendants for so little. That tells you all you need to know about whether the State thought this verdict was likely, and what they thought the scale of damages might be for the major players, let alone the side-show that was J&J.
  • michaelt 7y ago
    I realise this might sound like a circular argument, but: Any fine imposed on a rational company for criminal conduct must be insufficient, because had the fine been sufficient, a rational company would not have engaged in the criminal conduct. In other words, if a company gets hit with an $X fine for Foo, the options are: 1. The company determined the profit from Foo was greater than $X multiplied by the probability of getting caught. 2. The company's governance meant decision-makers on Foo received bonuses for its profits, but were insulated from the costs/fines, and acted in their personal interests but against the company's interests. 3. The company underestimated $X or the probability of getting caught. 4. The company or its employees were irrational. And if you're the efficient-market-Homo-economicus type that believes 3 and 4 are impossible, that only leaves 1 and 2 - requiring fines larger than $X irrespective of what $X is or personal executive liability respectively. Of course, the downside to this argument is the results if you transfer it elsewhere in the justice system; by this logic, every crime should have infinite punishment - but an automatic death penalty for speeding is an absurd result.
    • Fjolsvith 7y ago
• BurningFrog 7y ago
  1. Everyone should read Dreamland. Even if you think you know the Opioid story, you don't know half of it. And completely aside from that, it's really well written. 2. One thing I took away from Dreamland was that there wasn't one factor to blame. Instead it was 4-6 separate factors that came together in a nightmarish perfect storm vortex to create this crisis. Which means the pharmaceutical companies have plenty of blame here, but still only 20-30% of the total.
  • nullc 7y ago
    4-6 sounds like it could be summarized without reading an entire book. :)
    • BurningFrog 7y ago
      Sure, but where is the fun in that :) Also, I don't think I can do it justice from memory.
• WalterBright 7y ago
  The war against illegal drug makers has had no effect. All you'll do by punishing pharmaceutical companies is have them exit the opiod business, and pray that you don't acquire a very painful condition.
  • i_am_nomad 7y ago
    The opioid business is only a subset of the analgesic business. If this forces pharma companies to target their research on non-addictive painkillers, that’s a good thing.
    • WalterBright 7y ago
      Future research is not available now. Pray you don't get an extremely painful condition.
      • nicoburns 7y ago
        Europe seems to manage this fine. There are plenty of companies manufacturing opioids, and they are widely available for people with severe pain. But companies are not allowed to advertise them. Same rules as we have for cigarettes and politicians, and it completely bypasses the question of whether a given advert is biased / truthful.
        • bonoboTP 7y ago
          How casually prescription meds are advertised on TV in the US was really shocking to me being from Europe.
          • johnisgood 7y ago
            Only OTC medications seem to be advertised here in Eastern Europe. This includes NSAIDs. They are more harmful than opioids due to the risk of virtually everything, such as: myocardial infarction, stroke, erectile dysfunction, gastric ulceration/bleeding, kidney failure (incl. hypertension). They also cause raised liver enzymes, and so on. None of the aforementioned side-effects exist for opioids. The only major concern is constipation (especially in the elderly), nausea, aaaaand euphoria. Yes. That is it. Respiratory depression and other severe adverse effects are not really an issue if you are taking therapeutic doses, especially if taken orally. If you are taking it intravenously, then you are properly under medical supervision anyway. There is a reason for why the elderly usually receive opioids instead of NSAIDs. It is more effective, and it has a better safety profile. The issue is with questionable products with adulterants and unknown purity. Harm reduction policies, and the end on the War on Drugs can improve the situation tremendously. Portugal is a great example of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsteroidal_anti-inflammatory_drug#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsteroidal_anti-inflammatory... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Adverse_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Adverse_effects As for addiction: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/addiction-and-choice-9780198727224 https://global.oup.com/academic/product/addiction-and-choice... An excellent book, it is worth reading. According to my experiences many people have lots of misconceptions regarding addiction.
• Shivetya 7y ago
  Sorry, this is nothing more than a shake down. There is no demonstrative connection between prescription use of opioids and non medical use. prescription use has come down only to see abuse go up. since it has become so much more difficult to divert prescriptions those seeking them have resorted to fentanyl and heroin which is not the fault of J&J or any other company. The real cause it the drug war that too many nations practice. this has led the over dose issues we have seen. it is not legal sellers of drugs or their advertising. quit buying into this sham sold by politicians and the media, the reason it exist is to simply redirect blame and shake down the companies by relying on ignorance
• jopsen 7y ago
  > Incentivizing restraint and honest advertising is only possible by punishing executives, personally [1]. Catch it early, give warnings and fines before you have a national health crisis in your hands.
• snarf21 7y ago
  There can be no "honest" advertising of drugs. We need to start banning ads for drugs completely. It probably wouldn't hurt to do the same for alcohol, etc. It's not like people still won't drink or asking for drug X but it stops the patients from demanding it. We've already made some strides by banning the pharma reps from sending super models to doctor's office to flirt and convince them to push drug X but we need to push further. Instead we should be spending more money at the FDA level. The surgeon general should have the resources that say that condition X, the approved drugs are A, B, C, D and E. You can also do in a phased fashion. You always prescribe A. Only if that fails do you prescribe B, etc. There are lots of treatment plans like this already (usually driven by insurance costs) but these could be built by leading physicians in each specialty. There are providers that have the knowledge of what works and doesn't but we do an awful job of capturing it. Most doctors just know what they learned in school 30 years ago or what they can google. We need better codification of successful treatment options for each condition X.
  • maxerickson 7y ago
    With liability for deviating from the plans? Having experienced a vaguely diagnosed condition that the doctor treated with intuition, I hope you don't get put in charge.
  • Cub3 7y ago
    Am confused by this whole thing, As someone who grew up in Australia I've never seen drug advertising, the closest would be supplements / vitamins that you can buy over the counter Is the idea that a user sees a drug advertised then goes to their doctor to ask for that specific one? Wouldn't the doctor give you a yay or nay for needing it then perscribing it? Do doctors in the US let the patient decide whether they should be perscribed the drug despite not agreeing with it?
    • AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
      I'm in the US, I see drug commercials all the time, but I don't understand how they work. Am I just supposed to go to my GP and ask for a drug I saw on TV? Are there really that many drugs so that any decent GP doesn't know most of them?
• jmkni 7y ago
  Just started listening to Dreamland, already hooked, thanks for the recommendation!