3 ms·
Here is a good resource on it [1]. My understanding is that Purdue pushed hard for marketing, including paying doctors to market for them. This paragraph sums u
by cheeze 2y ago
Here is a good resource on it [1]. My understanding is that Purdue pushed hard for marketing, including paying doctors to market for them. This paragraph sums up most of it.
> “Purdue admitted that it marketed and sold its dangerous opioid products to healthcare providers, even though it had reason to believe those providers were diverting them to abusers,” said Rachael A. Honig, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey. “The company lied to the Drug Enforcement Administration about steps it had taken to prevent such diversion, fraudulently increasing the amount of its products it was permitted to sell. Purdue also paid kickbacks to providers to encourage them to prescribe even more of its products.”
Is purdue solely at fault here? Absolutely not. Does it seem that Purdue likely knew what was happening, but put profits above public health? In my opinion, yes.
[1] - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-fraud-and-kickback-conspiracies https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/opioid-manufacturer-purdue-ph...
- shawndrost 2y agoI understand the contents of the link; that judgement prompts my question rather than answering it. The DOJ found that old Purdue's problem was illgal marketing, kickbacks, etc. I understand that as a legalistic thing. But as far as human judgement goes: I thought the problem here was opioid addiction, which is continuing to rise in the "new Purdue" regime. We all think old Purdue should not have been doing the illegal stuff. But was the illegal stuff the real problem here? It seems like the "new Purdue" reforms are not affecting the growth of the opioid epidemic.