Opioid Lawsuits

Recently states and cities, large and small, have made threats or begun the process of suing drug companies that manufacture opioids, blaming them for the epidemic of addiction and over-dose deaths that is sweeping the nation.

Here is a summary of one attorney general’s stance.  “Historically, opioid pain medications were considered too addictive and debilitating for anything but short-term acute pain and end-of-life care.”  But using sophisticated marketing campaigns in the 1990s, they “changed the prescribing culture, convincing doctors that opioids were not very addictive,” encouraging them to prescribe these drugs for chronic pain, using every trick at their disposal to increase sales.  They must take responsibility!

But the form of that responsibility is not specified.  The lawsuits reported on from cities in suburban Chicago “do not specify the amount of damages sought.”  So apparently their idea of responsibility means paying fines to governments.  A class action suit in West Virginia seems to be more focused and specific, seeking “relief for the following damages:

•  Medical expenses, including money (often thousands of dollars) spent on the prescription drugs in question
•  Costs for drug treatment programs
•  Lost wages
•  Pain and suffering
•  Funeral expenses (if they lost a loved one to overdose)
•  Any other relief the Court deems fair and just”

You would hope that such threat of penalties would motivate the drug companies to stop enticing doctors to do their dirty work.  These accusations certainly don’t cast a favorable light on the medical profession as a whole, but it’s probably like politics where everyone thinks their representative (or in this case doctor) is good, but the rest are despicable.

  

It reminds me of the lawsuits against Big-Tobacco, the primary difference being that tobacco has no redeeming characteristics, whereas opioids help people cope with severe pain.  Shutting tobacco companies down or at least fining them and requiring them to widely advertise the evils of their product makes sense, especially if it drives up the cost of cigarettes.  Driving up the cost of drugs or making them less available for the people who need them, on the other hand, would not be optimal.

Another problem arises from the fact that some of the people who became addicted and overdosed, did so using drugs that they obtained illegally.  Do we reward people for breaking the law by reimbursing them for lost wages, pain and suffering or money spent on their drugs?  That is for the courts to decide. 

Something to consider is how such a precedent may play out, suing companies that make a legal, beneficial product that can also be used irresponsibly or to break the law.  Some have already raised the idea of suing gun manufacturers.  Will cities move on to sue paint companies because they can’t control the spread of graffiti?  Will ladder makers be held accountable for the actions of cat burglars?  Why not sue glove companies or towel companies when no fingerprints are left behind at the scene of the crime?  Why didn’t this come up years ago when drivers were buying radar detectors for the sole purpose of warning them to slow down before they're caught speeding?  That was a product that, only with a great deal of subterfuge, could be represented as a benefit to society.  Lawsuits of this kind have already driven companies to plaster packaging and inserts with a host of, often ridiculous, warnings.

Some of those examples are farfetched, but the point is that states, cities and individuals seem to be surrendering, admitting the problem is beyond their control, their resources and their abilities, while looking for a scapegoat.  But isn’t this search for someone else to blame typical behavior of the addict they are trying to help and one of the first things they must overcome before recovery is possible?  Does no one else see the irony?