Banner by Julia Malnak

Codone and Corruption

By Riya Sharma

Do you know who Arthur Sackler is? Have you heard of anyone in the Sackler family? Kathe? Richard? Mortimer? Do any of these names ring a bell? Probably not, but you might know the drug behind their fortune: OxyContin. Through vigorous marketing tactics, the Sacklers were able to manipulate the healthcare industry, contributing heavily to the opioid epidemic and leaving families in shambles, while a disgraced name is the only consequence they faced.

Arthur Sackler was born and raised in New York City in the 1910s, along with his two brothers, Mortimer and Raymond. All three brothers became doctors and made money through various outlets: practicing as physicians, conducting research on psychological diseases, and working in medical advertising. In 1952, the Sackler brothers bought Purdue Pharma, previously known as Purdue Frederick Company, a privately owned pharmaceutical company. Initially, they sold products along the lines of earwax remover and laxatives, but the brothers had a desire to produce a “blockbuster drug” and their continued research efforts created the painkiller OxyContin, a pill containing oxycodone. By the time OxyContin was created in 1995, Richard Sackler, son of Raymond, was running Purdue Pharma. 

OxyContin was released to the public in 1996, and sales surpassed Richard’s expectations. But, by the year 2000, people were making furious claims that the Sackler family spearheaded the opioid epidemic. So, what went wrong? Purdue Pharma claimed that OxyContin was non-addictive - this was false. They said it provided 12 hours of pain relief - false. They said the slow-release formula prevents addiction - false. With a sales force constituting upwards of 500 representatives, doctors were being fed lies about Purdue’s “miraculous painkiller.” In addition, extra attention was given to the doctors who practiced in areas that would be more likely to “need” their drug. What does that mean? The company targeted communities with large numbers of blue-collar workers who have higher chances of sustaining a work injury and in turn are more likely to require painkillers. If that was not enough to convince doctors to increase the number of prescriptions given to patients, Purdue’s all-expenses paid conferences were another subtle nudge. The amalgamation of aggressive marketing and false claims may have been successful in selling the drug, but the truth always comes out.

As more and more families were affected by opioid addiction and overdoses, lawsuits began popping up in every state in America.  Even though the saying goes, “With great wealth comes great responsibility,” the Sacklers’ ideology was more along the lines of, “With great wealth comes the ability to defer responsibility.” Purdue Pharma’s strong legal team did a fantastic job of squashing each accusation, whether it be through intimidation, payoffs, or bribery of judges.

But by 2019, the allegations had rapidly accumulated and the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy, a move that granted them protection from all the unresolved lawsuits. This caused an uproar as they were far from bankrupt. The current resulting agreement requires the Sacklers to pay $6 billion dollars, with 750 million going towards affected families in the states involved in the settlement. This all sounds satisfactory until you realize this did not account for the money they had wired to international banks; another sly move to avoid fiscal responsibility. Regardless, no amount of money can truly make up for the harm caused.

So, who is really bearing the brunt of opioid addiction consequences? The (misled) users. Opioid addiction, or any addiction for that matter, can be devastating. It can negatively impact a user internally such as their mind and body. But also externally, like their interpersonal relationships and ability to work, to name a few. Not to mention, it can be extremely difficult to recover from addiction. That being said, opioid users are 13 times more likely to have a run-in with the criminal justice system, a criminal justice system that is not conducive to their rehabilitation. According to the Prison Policy Initiative, “a non-profit criminal justice oriented think tank”, only a quarter of incarcerated individuals with opioid addiction receive treatment, leaving them more susceptible to overdose once they are released. A study done in North Carolina discovered that inmates were about 42 times more likely than the general population to have a fatal overdose within two weeks of being released. Forty-two times more likely; let that sink in. While the Sacklers are using their hefty fortune to pay for their mistakes, others are paying with their lives.         

The Sacklers have shown us the strength of Big Pharma’s influence on the healthcare industry and the drastic impact it can have on the general population. While the Sacklers made billions and faced few repercussions, the same cannot be said for the hundreds of thousands of people that are put in jail for an opioid addiction they cannot control. Which is why now is the time to make sure that we do not repeat history. We have seen how destructive it can be when drug development is profit driven which is why the kinds of marketing tactics the Sacklers used have no place in medicine. Healthcare has always been a prestigious field, and those who tarnish its integrity should face the consequences. At the end of the day, it is the patient’s best interest that should be the focus and from here on out, we need to make sure it stays that way.