[Barraketh]

I totally agree. I'm just saying that from the point of view of legal liability the doctor is considered an expert. Purdue would argue that the doctor is getting information from a variety of sources (including the FDA), and so when they prescribe a medication and then the patient gets addicted, the responsibility lies with the doctor.

And I also agree that you can't blame a patient for getting addicted. However, in US law there is something called the "clean hands doctrine", which denies remedies if the accuser has acted in bad faith wrt the subject of the claim. In practice this might translate to arguing that because the patient is breaking the law in misusing opioids, they don't deserve damages.

All I'm trying to say is that while Purdue is definitely morally responsible, legally it's kinda difficult.

[8ytecoder]

I think you mean well but I’d say you have to read up more about this case. The owners were not mere stockholders. Nor were they innocent bystanders. They convinced doctors to prescribe their addictive drugs with false information and studies and a very high pressure marketing and sales campaign. It’s on them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RZEUVRzNt0U

[john_yaya]

One of Purdue’s specific misdeeds was lying to doctors about the addictiveness of OxyContin and leading them to believe that it had a very low risk of abuse. Much of the litigation against the company focuses on this.