Answer Addiction

Tag: Purdue Pharma oxycontin

  • David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    The third-generation Sackler defended his family, Purdue Pharma and OxyContin in an eye-opening interview with Vanity Fair.

    David Sackler — a former board member at Purdue Pharma and son of Richard Sackler, whose infamous comments about opioids have been made public this year — says that his family’s role in the opioid epidemic is misunderstood. 

    Speaking with Vanity Fair, Sackler called the focus on the family “vitriolic hyperbole” and “endless castigation.” However, he said that his entire family has the utmost sympathy for people whose lives have been upended up opioid abuse. 

    “We have so much empathy,” he said. “I’m sorry we didn’t start with that. We feel absolutely terrible. Facts will show we didn’t cause the crisis, but we want to help.”

    Sackler decided to speak out because he felt that by staying silent the family has let other people take control of the story about Purdue Pharma, his family and opioid abuse. He wanted to begin “begin humanizing” the family. 

    “We have not done a good job of talking about this,” Sackler said. “That’s what I regret the most.” 

    Sackler said that it was true that Purdue was one of the first companies to emphasize the pain-relieving qualities of opioids. 

    “We were. But as the science changed, we put safeguards in place,” he said. 

    Although OxyContin is often pinpointed as the start of the epidemic, Sackler said that idea is inaccurate. 

    “To argue that OxyContin started this is not in keeping with history,” he said. 

    He added that people are judging the company’s actions through a modern lens, without taking into account the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

    “I really don’t think there’s much in the complaints, frankly, that’s at issue that’s not just, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have marketed these things at all,’” he said. “Right? And I guess that’s a hindsight debate one can have.”

    Sackler argued that OxyContin is not as addictive as is often portrayed, but also said that regulatory bodies share the blame for allowing the drug to move forward. He said that ultimately the Food and Drug Administration decided that the pain relief benefits of OxyContin outweighed the addiction risk.

    “The FDA approved this medication with that balance in mind,” Sackler said. “So like any medication that has unintended side effects, you knew that this was one. It was approved as one. Doctors understood it, right?”

    When the risks became clear, Purdue put protective measures in place, including barring sales reps from contacting doctors who operated pill mills, Sackler said. 

    “None of the facts support the notion of these craven people just blithely ignoring the risks,” he said. “The company was trying to do the right thing under incredible stress.”

    Sackler revealed that his father Richard, who once referred to people abusing OxyContin as “reckless criminals,” has poor communication skills. 

    “He just cannot understand how his words are going to land on somebody,” Sackler said. That is made even worse when Richard’s written remarks are released to the public, he noted. “For a person like that, email is about the worst medium possible to communicate in, because there is no other cue. And so he’s saying things that sound incredibly strident and sound incredibly unsympathetic, and that’s not the person that he is.”   

    He emphasized that while Purdue was not responsible for the opioid epidemic, the family certainly should not be held personally responsible. 

    “The suits are grasping at the notion that the Sacklers were in charge of the operation,” he said. “That’s just so not true. I was on the board from 2012 to 2018, and I was voting on information I was given.”

    Sackler insisted that Purdue and his family have done good over the years. 

    “It’s overwhelming what the company over the years was trying to do to fix this problem, and the money they spent,” he said. “And it’s heartbreaking for all of us in the family, not only to be attacked personally for this, but just to know the truth, and to know what the rest of the industry did in comparison—nothing. Nothing at all. Not a thing at all.”

    He continued, “We have gone past the point where no good deed goes unpunished into the theater of the absurd.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Why Are Judges Sealing Court Evidence Related To Opioid Settlements?

    Why Are Judges Sealing Court Evidence Related To Opioid Settlements?

    Experts are calling into question the unexplained decisions to seal evidence surrounding opioid settlements with Big Pharma companies.

    Eighteen years ago, West Virginia Judge Booker T. Stephens saw evidence that Purdue Pharma had engaged with misleading and aggressive marketing practices that were getting people hooked on opioids in his state. But instead of allowing that information to become public, Stephens sealed the evidence. Purdue settled with the state, and the damning information was never made public.

    “This case was sealed because both sides agreed and asked me to seal it,” he said to Reuters recently. “Obviously when you settle a case of this magnitude and of this nature, Purdue Pharma would not want to let the world know they had engaged in deceptive marketing practices.”

    State and federal laws allow court evidence to be sealed when there is a privacy concern, but a recent Reuters analysis found that the practice has become widespread. Although federal law mandates that most evidence be made public, Reuters found that over the past 20 years judges have sealed evidence in about half of multidistrict litigation cases, often without explanation.

    This is alarming in cases like that of Purdue, where making the evidence public would have raised awareness of a public safety issue, and potentially saved lives.

    “Information that could have really made a difference sometimes doesn’t come to light,” Judge and judicial educator Jeremy Fogel said.

    Judges are supposed to explain why they seal evidence, and only seal the documents that contain sensitive information, like medical records or trade secrets. But as sealing evidence has become more common, judges like Stephens simply seal evidence without explanation.

    In 1991, Arthur Miller, a New York University law professor, wrote a paper claiming there was no proof that sealing evidence could result in public harm. Reached recently, however, he said that the opioid epidemic and the Reuters analysis of how evidence is handled show that there is a public interest in keeping evidence open.

    “Certainly, anything relating to public health or things tied to social policy, you would want to have an explanation as to why something is sealed,” he said.

    The question is particularly relevant as a federal judge in Ohio sorts through 2,000 lawsuits against the drug manufacturing industry. Judge Dan A. Polster has sealed most of the evidence in those cases.

    A recent court case in Massachusetts has made public reams of internal documents from Purdue, which have highlighted the unscrupulous practices at the company. The outcry shows the importance of having transparency around evidence in the judicial system.

    Stephens, the judge who sealed the Purdue evidence 18 years ago, still sees the affects of opioids in his courtroom today. Yet, West Virginia University College of Law professor Jennifer Oliva said that Stephens could have helped fuel earlier awareness of the opioid epidemic if he had not sealed the case.

    “That’s bananas,” Oliva said. “He’s not allowed to do that without providing reasons.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    David Sackler Speaks Out: My Family Didn’t Cause The Opioid Crisis

    The third-generation Sackler defended his family, Purdue Pharma and OxyContin in an eye-opening interview with Vanity Fair.

    David Sackler — a former board member at Purdue Pharma and son of Richard Sackler, whose infamous comments about opioids have been made public this year — says that his family’s role in the opioid epidemic is misunderstood. 

    Speaking with Vanity Fair, Sackler called the focus on the family “vitriolic hyperbole” and “endless castigation.” However, he said that his entire family has the utmost sympathy for people whose lives have been upended up opioid abuse. 

    “We have so much empathy,” he said. “I’m sorry we didn’t start with that. We feel absolutely terrible. Facts will show we didn’t cause the crisis, but we want to help.”

    Sackler decided to speak out because he felt that by staying silent the family has let other people take control of the story about Purdue Pharma, his family and opioid abuse. He wanted to begin “begin humanizing” the family. 

    “We have not done a good job of talking about this,” Sackler said. “That’s what I regret the most.” 

    Sackler said that it was true that Purdue was one of the first companies to emphasize the pain-relieving qualities of opioids. 

    “We were. But as the science changed, we put safeguards in place,” he said. 

    Although OxyContin is often pinpointed as the start of the epidemic, Sackler said that idea is inaccurate. 

    “To argue that OxyContin started this is not in keeping with history,” he said. 

    He added that people are judging the company’s actions through a modern lens, without taking into account the prevailing wisdom at the time. 

    “I really don’t think there’s much in the complaints, frankly, that’s at issue that’s not just, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t have marketed these things at all,’” he said. “Right? And I guess that’s a hindsight debate one can have.”

    Sackler argued that OxyContin is not as addictive as is often portrayed, but also said that regulatory bodies share the blame for allowing the drug to move forward. He said that ultimately the Food and Drug Administration decided that the pain relief benefits of OxyContin outweighed the addiction risk.

    “The FDA approved this medication with that balance in mind,” Sackler said. “So like any medication that has unintended side effects, you knew that this was one. It was approved as one. Doctors understood it, right?”

    When the risks became clear, Purdue put protective measures in place, including barring sales reps from contacting doctors who operated pill mills, Sackler said. 

    “None of the facts support the notion of these craven people just blithely ignoring the risks,” he said. “The company was trying to do the right thing under incredible stress.”

    Sackler revealed that his father Richard, who once referred to people abusing OxyContin as “reckless criminals,” has poor communication skills. 

    “He just cannot understand how his words are going to land on somebody,” Sackler said. That is made even worse when Richard’s written remarks are released to the public, he noted. “For a person like that, email is about the worst medium possible to communicate in, because there is no other cue. And so he’s saying things that sound incredibly strident and sound incredibly unsympathetic, and that’s not the person that he is.”   

    He emphasized that while Purdue was not responsible for the opioid epidemic, the family certainly should not be held personally responsible. 

    “The suits are grasping at the notion that the Sacklers were in charge of the operation,” he said. “That’s just so not true. I was on the board from 2012 to 2018, and I was voting on information I was given.”

    Sackler insisted that Purdue and his family have done good over the years. 

    “It’s overwhelming what the company over the years was trying to do to fix this problem, and the money they spent,” he said. “And it’s heartbreaking for all of us in the family, not only to be attacked personally for this, but just to know the truth, and to know what the rest of the industry did in comparison—nothing. Nothing at all. Not a thing at all.”

    He continued, “We have gone past the point where no good deed goes unpunished into the theater of the absurd.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sackler Family Wants To Settle Opioid Lawsuits

    Sackler Family Wants To Settle Opioid Lawsuits

    While the Sacklers are interested in settling, a rep for the family insists that they are not at fault for the opioid epidemic.

    Members of the Sackler family, owners of Purdue Pharma, want to settle the onslaught of opioid lawsuits against them, according to recent statements from a family lawyer. 

    Speaking with Reuters, Mary Jo White of Debevoise & Plimpton, who represents four members of the family, said their clients are interested in settling the lawsuits, but also insisted that the company and the family are not at fault for the opioid epidemic. 

    “The objective is and remains to try to achieve a global resolution,” White said. “Purdue and the Sackler family members, given this litigation landscape, would like to resolve with the plaintiffs in a constructive way to get the monies to the communities that need them, to the people that are addicted… rather than to pay attorneys’ fees for years and years and years to come. You’re talking 2,000 cases. How long will they take to go through the court system?”

    White said that given the scope of the lawsuits against the Sackler family and Purdue, settling is going to be a long and complex process. 

    She said, “You have municipalities and counties as well as state AGs involved in these matters, and getting all of those plaintiffs in a global resolution is very difficult.”

    Despite the family’s willingness to settle, White said that they are not interested in accepting fault. White said that the lawsuits twist and misconstrue normal business documents to shine a negative light on the company. She added that the lawsuits are politically motivated. 

    “Let’s be clear: There is a major public health crisis that we’re all dealing with. But in terms of litigation, what you always want are all of the motivators to be merits-based so that politics are not playing a role, incentives are not playing a role that alters the outcome,” she said. “Let’s see what the real problem is and what the real solutions are rather than playing a litigation blame game with the fingers pointed in the wrong direction.”

    However, Paul Hanly, who is representing municipalities suing Purdue, said that the cases against the company are solid. 

    “Our cases assert strong legal, not political, claims against the Sacklers and all of the other defendants,” he told Reuters. “Ms. White’s comments are belied by the facts that Judge Polster [overseeing the federal cases in Ohio courts] has denied motions to dismiss brought by any number of defendants also claiming that the allegations are without a proper legal basis… and such motions have met the same fate in the New York state coordinated cases.” 

    Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who is leading a lawsuit against the company, was not impressed with White’s statements. 

    “For years, members of the Sackler family tried to shift the blame and hide their role in creating and profiting off the opioid epidemic,” she said. “Our lawsuit exposed their illegal deception, and we will aggressively pursue our case against them.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sackler Family Says Opioid Lawsuit Is "Misleading"

    Sackler Family Says Opioid Lawsuit Is "Misleading"

    The family’s lawyers have filed motions to dismiss the complaint filed against them by the Massachusetts Attorney General.

    Members of the billionaire Sackler family say that public outrage over their alleged role in the opioid epidemic—as the owners of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma—is all a big misunderstanding. 

    According to lawsuits filed across the country, including one in Massachusetts, members of the Sackler family played an active role in pushing opioid painkillers marketed by Purdue Pharma, despite knowing about the addiction risks.

    As the national opioid crisis worsened, the company even considered selling addiction medication to further profit off of opioid addiction, the lawsuits allege. 

    However, a statement made by the family’s attorneys this week said that prosecutors and the press are cherry-picking information to make the family look bad, according to WGBH Boston. 

    “We are confident the court will look past the inflammatory media coverage generated by the misleading complaint and apply the law fairly by dismissing all of these claims,” the statement read. 

    The Sacklers are one of the richest families in the U.S. and are major donors to museums, colleges and other institutions. However, the family has been subject to more scrutiny as the lawsuits against them pile up.

    In February, activists staged a “die-in” at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City to highlight the role of the Sacklers in promoting addictive opioids. The family had donated extensively to the museum. More recently, a donation to the UK’s National Portrait Gallery was mutually cancelled because of public outcry. 

    “It has become evident that recent reporting of allegations made against Sackler family members may cause this new donation to deflect the National Portrait Gallery from its important work,” a spokesperson for the Sackler Trust told NPR. “The allegations against family members are vigorously denied.”

    Those allegations include that family members, particularly former Purdue Pharma President and Chairman Richard Sackler, were actively involved with marketing OxyContin in misleading ways even when they knew the risk of addiction to the pills was high. The Massachusetts lawsuit alleges that Sackler even visited doctors to help push OxyContin, something that the family denies. 

    Richard Sackler also reportedly made a comment in 1996 about OxyContin’s launch being “followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition.”

    This week, attorneys for the family said that the statement was taken out of context, and that Sackler was actually referring to a snow blizzard that had made him late for the event. 

    The statement goes on to say that the lawsuit “mischaracterizes and selectively quotes from the hundreds of documents it cites to create the false impression” that the family “micromanaged every aspect of Purdue’s marketing strategy.” Rather, the family was not that closely involved with the operations of Purdue, the statement said. 

    However, the Sackler family (not just Purdue) was ordered to pay $75 million over five years as part of a settlement with the state of Oklahoma last week. After that, New York added the family to its ongoing lawsuit against Purdue. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    Opioid Lawsuits Pile Up Against Family Behind Purdue Pharma

    A string of lawsuits seeks to hold the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, responsible for the opioid crisis.

    The Sackler family is withdrawing from the public sphere, including ending their philanthropic initiatives, as legal pressure rises to hold them responsible for the opioid crisis.

    Their charity arm, the Sackler Trust, has historically donated millions but announced it was ceasing all such activity now that they’re receiving bad press and alleging that “false allegations” are being made against them.

    “The current press attention that these legal cases in the United States is generating has created immense pressure on the scientific, medical, educational and arts institutions here in the U.K., large and small, that I am so proud to support. This attention is distracting them from the important work that they do,” said Sackler Trust chairwoman Theresa Sackler. “The Trustees of the Sackler Trust have taken the difficult decision to temporarily pause all new philanthropic giving, while still honoring existing commitments. I remain fully committed to all the causes the Sackler Trust supports, but at this moment it is the better course for the Trust to halt all new giving until we can be confident that it will not be a distraction for institutions that are applying for grants.”

    Purdue Pharma is the manufacturer of the opioid painkiller OxyContin, a drug for which they stand accused of downplaying the negative effects of while encouraging doctors to prescribe as much as possible in the name of profit.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control, opioids caused about 218,000 American deaths between 1999 and 2017. A recent study found that people are now more likely die from an opioid overdose than in a car accident. The Sacklers say they recognize that action needs to be taken.

    “We recognize that more needs to be done and that’s why we launched a long-term initiative that continues to build as we pursue a range of solutions that we believe will have a meaningful impact,” wrote Theresa Sackler.

    The Sacklers have suspended a $1.3 million grant to the United Kingdom’ National Portrait Gallery as to “avoid being a distraction.” Some other organizations, like the art gallery Tate, the Guggenheim, and the hedge fund Hildene Capital Management, have cut ties to the Sacklers preemptively.

    “The weight on my conscience led me to terminate the relationship,” said hedge fund manager Brett Jefferson.

    Some have called for removing the Sacklers’ name from buildings they funded, including Harvard University’s Arthur M. Sackler Museum and the Smithsonian’s Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which were funded by the Sacklers long before the invention of OxyContin. Spokespeople for both museums have said they are not going to remove the Sackler name from their buildings.

    “Museums (are) white washing the reputation of a family that is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people … But the tide is turning against them,” said L.A. Kauffman of accountability group Sackler PAIN.

    View the original article at thefix.com