[doctorpangloss]

I just wonder why random people would know better about this than your highly educated providers. Go ahead and ask. You can say those exact words. They will give better answers!

If you want a poll, this court case was a poll. A majority of victims who had ample time to participate in litigation agreed to the settlement terms. They told you that addiction is bad, the new Purdue would help, and that money from its owners was sufficient justice. That some agitator basically played the Yogg-Sauron of this meta, the Supreme Court, and cast 5 fireballs against his opponent versus 4 fireballs on himself, isn't super material to the seeming success of the hard political work of this bankruptcy judge.

[darawk]

Oxycontin was, and still is, a prescription drug. I'm not sure if you're aware, but at least in the United States (where this court judgment was), it is doctors that write prescriptions. Listening to them is how the first opioid crisis happened. McKinsey dangled some shiny slides in front of Purdue, Purdue dangled them in front of doctors, and then doctors prescribed them en masse. This has, arguably, not gone well.

[jacobgkau]

> I just wonder why random people would know better about this than your highly educated providers. Go ahead and ask. You can say those exact words. They will give better answers!

Are you sure they'll give "better answers" when they're the ones prescribing like that?

[ninetyninenine]

its easier to ask random people from home then go to a provider when I have no such problem or need to physically introduce myself to a highly educated provider. it's like a google search.

What I wonder is why someone like you wouldn't know this?

[shawndrost]

My question is specifically about the judgements that uninvolved people have formed. I can't learn about this from my doctor, or from the victims' decision in the context of a highly-constrained kabuki dance.

It seems most commenters here are fine with a settlement that clears Purdue to sell opioids (for the benefit of victims), but not with a settlement that lets the Sacklers off with a fine. That is exactly the opposite of my moral intuitions. What gives?

Some questions are message board questions.