Tag: Sackler family

  • Prevent Opioid Overdose Deaths: A Call for Specific Prescribing Laws and Physician Oversight

    Prevent Opioid Overdose Deaths: A Call for Specific Prescribing Laws and Physician Oversight

    Make doctors precisely explain why they are prescribing opioids and why they decided on the pill count and refill allowance for each patient. 

    Recently, a friend’s teenage daughter underwent a procedure common for young adults: she had her wisdom teeth extracted. I had the same procedure performed in the late 1990s, at age 20. Back then, I was given a bottle of ibuprofen for the pain and, for the bleeding, told to apply tea bags. My friend’s daughter was given something just a tad stronger: 

    Vicodin.

    A teenager was given a strong opioid painkiller to numb the pain of a routine tooth extraction. It’s absurd that this is the accepted medication for this procedure when there are no complications, nothing that would indicate breakthrough pain on a level of requiring a narcotic that is given to cancer patients.

    However, the fight against opioid abuse is finally gaining promising victories by wielding an effective weapon: lawsuits. 

    Holding Big Pharma Accountable

    As the epidemic grew, many – myself included – called for state and local authorities to take drug companies to court for knowingly encouraging large-scale consumer usage of highly addictive prescription painkillers such as OxyContin, Vicodin and Percocet. Thousands of lawsuits have now been filed and in August, the $572 million decision won by Oklahoma against Johnson & Johnson became the first large-scale trial ruling concerning Big Pharma’s role in creating the opioid crisis. The state argued that J&J, which had supplied 60% of the opioids drug makers used for painkillers, aggressively marketed the drug to doctors and patients as safe. 

    Most recently the Sackler family – owners of Purdue Pharma, which makes OxyContin – reached a tentative settlement for$10-12 billion, a move that will result in the company’s bankruptcy

    They lied, we died, and now they have to pay up. Hopefully these are just the first few drips in an oncoming flood of restitution owed Americans by companies responsible for an unprecedented addiction crisis. They deserve whatever fates come their way – criminal, civil, or, as the 800-pound spoon left at Johnson & Johnson’s headquarters intended, shame-filled. 

    Now, as the overdose death rate shows signs of ebbing but has by no means abated – 68,000 Americans died in 2018 compared with 72,000 in 2017, hardly cause for celebration – it’s time to ask what’s next. 

    For years, drug companies pushed opioids as a panacea for all things pain-related. The result was an absolute avalanche of prescriptions: 191 million in 2017 alone, which averages to 58 opioid prescriptions for every 100 Americans. And despite guidelines intended to discourage opioid painkillers as a first-step approach to easing pain, primary care clinicians – most patients’ initial gateways to healthcare – wrote 45% of all opioid prescriptions. 

    Surgeons also have been implicated in widespread overprescribing. One study of nearly 20,000 surgeons, led by Johns Hopkins School of Public Health researchers, noted the common practice of prescribing dozens of opioid medications even for low-pain operations. Some prescribed over 100 opioid pills for the week following a surgery, along with usage instructions far exceeding guidelines from several academic medical centers. No wonder some six percent of all patients prescribed opioids post-surgery become dependent

    The diagnosis is simple: Doctors have proven incapable of, or unwilling to, exercise responsible discretion in determining which conditions and medical procedures necessitate painkillers notoriously linked to addiction, misuse, and overdose. 

    A Painful Backlash

    Complicating matters, the opioid crisis has become a two-way street. 

    In response to the backlash to the initial opioid free-for-all, many doctors have become so wary of prescribing opioids that those who truly need them are unjustly suffering. Much of this hesitancy is a reaction to guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control in 2016 that, according to Richard Lawhern, founder of the Alliance for the Treatment of Intractable Pain, has subjected patients with legitimate chronic pain to a “draconian reduction” in doctors willing to meet their needs with opioid-based medication.

    The problem with the CDC’s directive was vagueness of language. The guidelines state that opioids are appropriate for pain caused by cancer, end-of-life care, and “palliative care.” But “palliative” is a subjective term, and therefore confusing for doctors who, understandably, now have their guards up against malpractice suits in addition to opioid addiction and abuse. In a February 2019 reiteration of its guidelines, the CDC clarified that opioids are reasonable for chronic pain but, unfortunately, repeated its ambiguous wording concerning specific conditions. 

    However unintended, the result is patients who rely on opioids for legitimate medical reasons suffering for the sins of Big Pharma and, subsequently, the incompetence of government officials and the inadequacies – including cowardice – of doctors.

    The scale of the crisis and forcefulness of the backlash also has resulted in patients who, through no fault of their own, became dependent on opioids and, at the drop of a guideline, found themselves completely cut off from a highly addictive drug and dropped into a hellish withdrawal. The unsurprising consequence of this overreaction by doctors is patients turning to the streets for unregulated, often fentanyl-tainted heroin. Any laws written to specify opioid painkiller administration must include reasonable ways of relieving already-addicted patients through treatment centers and weaning agents like methadone and buprenorphine (suboxone). 

    However, the conviction permeating the chronic pain community – that doctors rather than laws should be the primary determinant of opioid prescriptions – simply doesn’t hold water. It’s become clear that doctors don’t necessarily know best. We need rules that hamstring the parasitic overprescribers while unhandcuffing the paranoid underprescribers.

    Guidelines Aren’t Enough

    It’s time for legislators to take the mystery out of this branch of medicine. If doctors can’t stop writing opioid prescriptions to those who don’t need them, or refusing to write prescriptions for those who do, then we must enact laws with clear prescribing instructions. 

    We’re all familiar with mandatory sentencing guidelines; we need mandatory dispensing guidelines – laws that bring harsh punishment for overprescribing pain medication when it’s not indicated, while reassuring doctors that they will not be unfairly punished for providing chronic pain patients with the relief they require.

    The time has come for customized ailment and procedure-related opioid painkiller dosing laws, complete with extensive medical rationale requirements. Make doctors precisely explain why they are prescribing opioids and why they decided on the pill count and refill allowance for each patient. 

    We also need to look at something else: ourselves. Especially in post-surgery settings, the opioid overprescribing epidemic was exacerbated by the naïve, altogether modern notion that patients should never feel discomfort or pain. 

    If alternatives to opioids don’t kill 100% of post-procedure pain, the new one-word answer should be “tough.” The idea that we can go through life without ever experiencing pain is not only delusional but, as we’re seeing, destructive. Things heal. Patients will need more, well, patience. 

    Numbing people literally to death is not the answer. It is irresponsible and dangerous to prescribe opioids for an ingrown toenail. Or for carpal tunnel syndrome. Or to a child following a tonsillectomy or, of course, a teenager after a tooth extraction. 

    On the flip side, it is cruel and flat-out stupid to deny patients with serious chronic pain access to a now-demonized family of medicines that for many has meant the difference between functioning and debilitation. 

    The time for general guidelines is behind us. We need strict, specific statutes that greatly diminish doctors’ discretion while placing transparency and responsibility squarely on their shoulders. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers Pulled $13B From Purdue Prompting States To Push Back On Settlement

    Sacklers Pulled $13B From Purdue Prompting States To Push Back On Settlement

    “The Sacklers used the profits from their illegal scheme to become one of the richest families in the world…” twenty-four states argued in court documents.

    The Sackler family reaped up to $13 billion in profits from Purdue Pharma, money that some states say the family is trying to protect from going to settlements in the opioid lawsuits. 

    Now, states are trying to stop the family from getting a nine-month stay to protect them from opioid-related lawsuits, The Washington Post reports. The Sacklers are asking for the stay as part of the Purdue bankruptcy case. However, the states say that the bankruptcy can move forward without protecting the family

    “The Sacklers used the profits from their illegal scheme to become one of the richest families in the world—far wealthier than the company they ran,” twenty-four states argued in court documents. “Now, the Sacklers seek to leverage Purdue’s corporate bankruptcy to avoid their own individual accountability.’’

    “They’ve extracted nearly all the money out of Purdue and pushed the carcass of the company into bankruptcy.”

    The settlement agreement with Purdue includes $3 billion in funds from the Sackler family, but states say that’s not enough when the family pulled more than four times that amount in profits. 

    Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of the family, said, “The Sacklers want the bankruptcy court to stop our lawsuits so they can keep the billions of dollars they pocketed from OxyContin and walk away without ever being held accountable. That’s unacceptable.”

    North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein echoed that sentiment, “The Sackler family is trying to take advantage of the fact that they’ve extracted nearly all the money out of Purdue and pushed the carcass of the company into bankruptcy. That’s unacceptable. Multibillionaires are the opposite of bankrupt.’’

    Some States Feel Short-Changed By Settlement Offer

    Twenty-four states have agreed to the settlement, and an equal number—plus Washington, D.C.—are filing legal steps to oppose it. While some states are desperate for resources, others feel short-changed by the agreement.

    Daniel S. Connolly, an attorney for part of the Sackler family, insisted that the agreement was fair, and the family should be protected from further lawsuits. 

    “The Sacklers have agreed to relinquish their equity in Purdue and to contribute at least an additional $3 billion to the fight against the opioid crisis,” he said. “The stay, if granted, will allow parties to focus their efforts on this goal rather than on litigation that will waste resources and delay the deployment of solutions to communities in need.”

    He said that talking about $13 billion is unrealistic. 

    “The distribution numbers do not reflect the fact that many billions of dollars from that amount were paid in taxes and reinvested in businesses that will be sold as part of the proposed settlement,” he said. 

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • OxyContin Maker Expected To File for Bankruptcy

    OxyContin Maker Expected To File for Bankruptcy

    Purdue Pharma is expected to file for bankruptcy protection as the company reportedly failed to settle thousands of opioid lawsuits against them.

    After years of reaping massive profits from allegedly deceptive marketing practices around its opioid painkillers, Purdue Pharma is expected to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy soon, since negotiations to reach a settlement in the scores of lawsuits against the company have failed. 

    Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery and North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein updated attorneys general around the country over the weekend, and their letter was obtained by the Associated Press

    “As a result, the negotiations are at an impasse, and we expect Purdue to file for bankruptcy protection imminently,” Slatery and Stein wrote. 

    A spokesperson for Purdue responded, “Purdue declines to comment on that in its entirety.” In March, Reuters first reported that Purdue was exploring bankruptcy, although there was no official word from the company. 

    Filing for Bankruptcy

    If Purdue Pharma does make a move to file for bankruptcy, it would complicate more than 2,000 lawsuits that municipalities and states around the country have filed against the company. It would almost certainly mean that Purdue would not be part of the opioid lawsuit taking place in federal court Ohio. The first trial in that batch is expected to start next month. 

    One speculation is that a bankruptcy payout from Purdue could be worth $10 to $12 billion over time, but others say that the payout could be as little as $1 billion, which is small considering the amount of lawsuits against the company.

    Seeking Damages

    Attorneys vowed that they would continue to seek damages from the company. 

    “Like you, we plan to continue our work to ensure that the Sacklers, Purdue and other drug companies pay for drug addiction treatment and other remedies to help clean up the mess we allege they created,” Slatery and Stein wrote in their letter. 

    In some cases, states are personally suing the Sackler family, which has reportedly pulled billions of dollars out of Purdue and moved that personal wealth offshore. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is among those who plans to sue the Sackler family

    “I think they are a group of sanctimonious billionaires who lied and cheated so they could make a handsome profit,” he said. “I truly believe that they have blood on their hands.”

    Shapiro took to Twitter Saturday to emphasize his point. 

    “The Sacklers pioneered our #OpioidEpidemic,” he wrote. “They have blood on their hands. And on behalf of PA’ns, I will sue them personally, so that we can dig into their personal pockets & retrieve some of the money they made. We need this for treatment and other life saving efforts.”

    View the original article at thefix.com

  • Sacklers "Siphoned" Money From Purdue To Avoid Payouts, Lawsuit Alleges

    Sacklers "Siphoned" Money From Purdue To Avoid Payouts, Lawsuit Alleges

    A spokesperson for the Sackler family said that they were within their rights as shareholders to withdraw profits from Purdue Pharma.

    The state of Arizona has gone directly to the U.S. Supreme Court with a bold lawsuit alleging that members of the Sackler family took $4 billion from Purdue Pharma between 2008 and 2019 when they knew that the company would likely need the funds to settle opioid-related lawsuits. 

    “These transfers all took place at times when company officials, including the Sacklers, were keenly aware that Purdue was facing massive financial liabilities and that these transfers could prevent it from satisfying eventual judgments,” the suit argues

    “We want the Supreme Court to make sure that we hold accountable those individuals who are responsible for this epidemic,” Arizona’s Attorney General Mark Brnovich told The New York Times. “We allege that the Sacklers have siphoned billions of dollars from Purdue in recent years. They did this while knowing the company was facing massive financial liabilities.”

    The Long Shot

    The state hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case because it involves a state as a party. However, that may be unlikely since the court rarely hears cases that have not first gone through lower courts. 

    “I do think it’s a long shot,” Brnovich said. “It’s a little different. It’s a little unorthodox. Sometimes you’ve just got to throw deep.”

    He said that the pressing need for funds to combat the opioid crisis calls for intervention at the highest level of the court system. “We don’t have time for this to take years to wind through the courts. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction, and we think they have to act.”

    Another lawyer for the state, William S. Consovoy, said that the state is looking for a quicker resolution to the case. “The urgency is a big deal here. It’s very important that we get this resolved expeditiously, and that’s one of the key reasons why the Supreme Court is the right place to do this and to do this now.”

    Sacklers’ Statement

    A spokesperson for the Sackler family said that they were within their rights as shareholders to withdraw profits from Purdue Pharma. The spokesperson added that the allegations in the lawsuit are “inconsistent with the factual record.” The Sacklers “will vigorously defend against them,” the spokesperson said.  

    The Sackler family, in addition to Purdue Pharma, have become regular targets for opioid-related lawsuits, in part for their alleged misleading marketing of the drug OxyContin

    It is not clear when the court will decide whether or not to hear Arizona’s lawsuit. 

    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

  • 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 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

  • Who Should Be Held Responsible For The Opioid Epidemic?

    Who Should Be Held Responsible For The Opioid Epidemic?

    A new op-ed suggests that to receive “true justice” for the opioid epidemic, “we need to root out all the villains regardless of whether they have famous names.”

    When it comes to the opioid epidemic, no name brings frustration and anger like Purdue Pharma. It is commonly accepted that the maker of OxyContin contributed to the growth of the opioid epidemic by using aggressive and misleading sales tactics meant to get more powerful opioids into the hands of more Americans. 

    The Sackler family, members of which founded the company that would become Purdue Pharma, have also come under fire for their perceived role in the epidemic. Not only did the family profit vastly from the sale of OxyContin, but new court documents assert that they were directly involved with pushing for more sales.

    When it became clear that OxyContin was addictive they even considered making medications to assist in the treatment of addiction, which would have allowed them to double dip, profiting from both ends of the crisis. 

    The actions of Purdue Pharma were reprehensible, Robert Gebelhoff writes in an opinion piece for The Washington Post. However, he argues that in addition to punishing them, the country needs to seek punishment and retribution for others who contributed to the crisis.

    “The opioid epidemic is one of the worst systematic failures of health care in our country. For true justice, we need to root out all the villains, regardless of whether they have famous names,” he writes. 

    Gebelhoff calls for holding the medical community and other accountable. 

    He writes, “Even if states are able to turn these latest charges into some form of punishment for the Sacklers themselves, what about all those who promoted their cause? What about the researchers who accepted funding from drug manufacturers and carried out campaigns to destigmatize opioid painkillers? What about the officials at the Food and Drug Administration who not only approved OxyContin without any clinical studies on how addictive the drug might be, but also approved a package insert declaring the drug safer than its rival painkillers?”

    He also points to government officials who failed to intervene in the crisis, and even made it more difficult for the Drug Enforcement Administration to pursue concerning opioid sales.

    At the same time, government policy made it difficult for people to access medication-assisted treatment, which is widely accepted as the best treatment for opioid use disorder. This pattern continues today, according to recent VA research that shows too few people are getting access to medication-assisted treatment. 

    “Who holds such practitioners accountable?” Gebelhoff asks. 

    Gebelhoff points out that the Sacklers and Purdue are a good target, because they have enough money to help fund access to treatment and other interventions into the epidemic. However, he says it’s important that other entities be held responsible even if they don’t have deep pockets. 

    “The opioid saga — stemming from prescription painkillers — has irreparably damaged the lives of countless Americans over the past few decades,” he writes. “Don’t they deserve better?”

    View the original article at thefix.com