Once again, we have a legitimate product, that has benefitted untold thousands of pain suffers by relieving agony, being sued because of the deliberate misuse by certain elements of society that chose to be a drag on the public at large. Yet, it’s all about the money, and that means it’s open season on manufacturers. It would cheaper for society to give the drug away and let the users meet their ends the natural way……
While I agree the drug provides benefits to many people, I think one important piece of this case which may make it seem slightly less than a pure money-grab situation is:
“Kentucky officials…included claims that Purdue Pharma lied about the addictiveness of the drug to doctors”
If the drug company intentionally lied about the potential side effects and addictive nature of their product, which resulted in doctors believing the drug was safer than it really is, I think the suit would be valid.
I’m sure there’s more to the case than that one point but, if true, shouldn’t the manufacturer hold SOME negligence for intentionally lying about the true nature of their product??
you clearly do not know what you are talking about. the lawsuit contends that purdue purposely MISLED doctors about how addictive oxy was via a CAMPAIGN. get with the program..
Once again, we have a legitimate product, that has benefitted untold thousands of pain suffers by relieving agony, being sued because of the deliberate misuse by certain elements of society that chose to be a drag on the public at large. Yet, it’s all about the money, and that means it’s open season on manufacturers. It would cheaper for society to give the drug away and let the users meet their ends the natural way……
While I agree the drug provides benefits to many people, I think one important piece of this case which may make it seem slightly less than a pure money-grab situation is:
“Kentucky officials…included claims that Purdue Pharma lied about the addictiveness of the drug to doctors”
If the drug company intentionally lied about the potential side effects and addictive nature of their product, which resulted in doctors believing the drug was safer than it really is, I think the suit would be valid.
I’m sure there’s more to the case than that one point but, if true, shouldn’t the manufacturer hold SOME negligence for intentionally lying about the true nature of their product??
you clearly do not know what you are talking about. the lawsuit contends that purdue purposely MISLED doctors about how addictive oxy was via a CAMPAIGN. get with the program..