“We obtained consent from the donor to remove recognition following the 2022 civil settlement negotiated by the Connecticut attorney general, which allowed institutions to remove recognition,” UConn Health said in a written statement. In addition to UConn, many other institutions that have received donations from Sackler family members have taken similar actions in the past year, in response to the thousands of complaints that allege Purdue fueled the opioid crisis with deceptive Ox圜ontin marketing. Accountability is at the root of this story.The removal of the signage - some of which was taken down as recently as last week - reflects a process started after Connecticut announced in March 2022 an agreement to settle its lawsuit against Purdue and the Sacklers who own the company. Should the owners who pushed for more use and more money be the primary targets? What about the drug representatives - the army on the street - and relevant government agencies?Ĩ. It seems like there is a lot of blame to go around for the opioid crisis.
How do you feel about organizations – such as museums and universities – that have accepted donations from the Sacklers?ħ. In the book, the author uses the phrase ‘philanthropy isn’t charity.’ This refers to the great sums that the Sacklers donated over time. Do you see progress in understanding addiction as a medical condition?Ħ.
Also, there is a legacy of viewing addiction as a moral failing. It seemed like no one was looking out for the patients - not the doctors, the pharmaceutical reps, the government, or the community.
One group that seemed to be consistently overlooked in the book is the patients.
Do you think these dynamics have been too aggressive? Do they provide any benefits to the healthcare community and consumers?ĥ. Do you think that medical advertising would even be an industry if Sackler hadn’t invented it? It started with advertising, creating medical journals, but eventually led to an army of drug representatives paying doctors to promote their drugs. What do you think about the strategy of convincing the medical community that the drugs could be used long term and without addiction?Ĥ. Some would say that the problem wasn’t the medications - they are effective - but the fact that they were used ‘off label’ or otherwise abused. Do you see this narrative as a 'Rise and Fall' story of the Sackler family? Can you identify a specific point in the book’s timeline that the Sackler organization put profit over harm to patients and society?Ģ.
0 kommentar(er)
