[shawndrost]

My question is not about the settlement; it's a question about moral judgements people have around Sacklers/Purdue, including judgements I see on this comment page. I already understand the mechanical details you've explained and they don't answer my question.

[doctorpangloss]

> Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely?

Oxycodone is routinely and safely administered right now, to tens of thousands of people, every day. But this is kind of like, an FDA question, no?

[EncomLab]

Which is why going after the Sackler's is about politics and not about the law.

[jewayne]

Or maybe it's about the horrible crimes against humanity committed by the Sacklers?

[itsdrewmiller]

You said:

>I don't understand people who think the Sacklers are villains who destroyed lives, but Purdue should continue operating more-or-less as-is. Which is, I think, the conclusion from this settlement. If this is you, can you help me understand? Do you think there is/was a realistic way to prescribe opioids routinely and safely?

As GP noted, that is not the conclusion of the settlement - not even close. If you want to better understand comments on this page, perhaps reply to them asking for clarity?