Please disable your adblock and script blockers to view this page

OxyContin-pusher Purdue blames everyone but itself for opioid crisis

Purdue Pharma
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
the Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Purdue Frederick
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act
the Ars Orbital Transmission
CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group
Condé Nast

Beth Mole
Richard Sackler
Raymond Sackler
Ars Technica Addendum

No matching tags


No matching tags


No matching tags

Positivity     38.00%   
   Negativity   62.00%
The New York Times
Write a review: Ars Technica

In a motion to dismiss an explosive lawsuit brought by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma argues that it is not responsible for the current epidemic of opioid overdoses as the Commonwealth alleges—even if the people now overdosing were initially patients who became addicted to opioids while using its highly addictive painkiller.Further ReadingDamning court docs show just how far Sacklers went to push OxyContinPurdue, which forcefully marketed OxyContin after its 1995 FDA approval, notes that opioid overdose deaths are currently driven by use of illicit opioids, namely heroin and fentanyl. The company also alleges that it deceptively marketed its addictive pain killer were already addressed in a 2007 consent judgement, which resolved claims from 27 state attorneys general, including Massachusetts'.Overall, Purdue blasted the Commonwealth’s complaint, calling it “hyperbole-filled” and “oversimplified scapegoating based on a distorted account of the facts unsupported by applicable law.” It emphasized that no one company could be held responsible for the devastating toll of overdose deaths, highlighting the fact that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health had itself concluded that “’[n]o single substance or health care practice is solely responsible for the current opioid crisis. It could have been far worse.” Purdue alleges that “Dr. Sackler was merely commenting about the nature of recent press coverage,” not the deaths specifically.Purdue concludes:When this Court looks beyond the Commonwealth’s inflammatory language and examines the legal sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s causes of action under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and for public nuisance, it will be apparent that both have significant legal defects that require dismissal.Massachusetts is reportedly planning to oppose Purdue's motion.Meanwhile, Reuters first reported this week that Purdue is considering filing for bankruptcy to stymie liabilities from mounting lawsuits, such as the complaint from Massachusetts.You must login or create an account to comment.Join the Ars Orbital Transmission mailing list to get weekly updates delivered to your inbox.

As said here by Beth Mole