3 ms·
So, in this scenario, you have a pill and a doctor. You have an inanimate object that cannot defend itself against being prescribed to a person unnecessarily...
by AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
So, in this scenario, you have a pill and a doctor. You have an inanimate object that cannot defend itself against being prescribed to a person unnecessarily... and you have a doctor, who prescribes drugs to patients.
You are choosing to blame the inanimate object, when it is clearly the doctor who has acted unscrupulously.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tlrobinson 6y agoYou’re conveniently ignoring the people who produced and promoted (including apparently paying doctors to prescribe) the inanimate object.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y agoPrecisely - I ignored it out of convenience. OxyContin could grow on trees for all I care - it doesn't matter who made it, and that property doesn't do anything to strengthen or diminish my argument. To make the argument you're making, you would have to prove that it doesn't need to exist and was fraudulently made and promoted to deceive, not to help. The problem is that the thing exists, it has a necessary purpose for existing, and by existing it makes the world better for millions of people.
- edmundsauto 6y agoThat doesn’t give the company a free pass on anything else. The drug helped some, it hurt others. In an effort to increase sales, Purdue misled doctors and broke acceptable marketing practices in an effort to indiscriminately increase usage - good and bad. The claim is not that oxy didn’t help. The claim is that it also hurt, Purdue knew this, but ignored it for the sake of profit.