I would be glad to see the Sacklers donate millions to the City of Richmond. Mayor Stoney is currently trying to raise property taxes to repair all the potholed streets and repair our falling down schools. Direct your donations to Richmond, Sackler family, no questions asked.
7
Not to mention Harvard, where there is a Sackler Museum. Activists are calling to remove Sackler’s name from the building.
Arthur Sackler passed away some years before the opioid crisis, but he has also been considered a pioneer of the agressive marketing to sell addictive painkillers.
5
maybe the sacklers should donate all their money to drug treatment centers.
14
@kerri show them the way. start with just $50.
3
The people who pushed this drug, including members of the Sackler family, should be sent to prison along with El Chapo. I'm not holding my breath, though.
16
philanthropists?
museums ... to please the general public?
did any of those ,benevolently' rich give generously to
- build bridges, repair roads, equip schools etc.
- employ teachers, nurses, caregivers etc.
- raise the minimum wage to permanently decent levels,
- ...?
greed still finds too many ways to grow and grow.
10
@°julia eden Although, if they really had built bridges and repaired roads, you'd be asking why they didn't help fund museums. I, for one, choose not to look a gift horse in the asphalt.
10
@Kenneth Asking the billionaire class to fork over a fair share to support roads, public schools, railroads and basic health care for all Americans would be a quiet form of philanthropy. The Sacklers have blood on their hands, pushing opiodes onto our young. Glamour giving “charity” results in parties, fetes to honor the family, all empty ego boosts. The Koch brothers, David notably, get their names on buildings for giving money. But they fight tooth and nail to deprive all Americans of support. Boosting the far right wing, even onto fascism, that’s not a social good.
Who was the last great philanthropist? Look at the libraries and civic institutions across the country paid for by Andrew Carnegie. A true social and religious democrat, in the sense of giving all people an even break. He gave everything away.
The comparison is stark.
5
@Dana If you really think Andy was such a nice guy, you should read his biography. Anything but. But later in life, he did start giving back some of the money he "acquired," as long as there were plaques with his name on them to show what a great guy he was.
3
The Sacklers should be encouraged, and if necessary, made to contribute substantial sums to research on the development and treatment of addiction. There is so much we don't know about this disease. It is true that the majority of people who use opioids for pain relief following surgery, or other limited-time purposes, do not become addicted, but a percentage do. Why? What are the biological and psychological mechanisms that predispose some people to addiction? How do we identify those in whom potentially addictive drugs must be used with special care? How can we best help those already addicted? There is a lot of basic research to be done here, the sort that Big Pharma likes to rely on the NIH to fund. It's about time their profits start being put into that research.
3
What did Arthur Sackler die of?
They’re lying crooks and murderers. Disgusting. And it started before Oxycontin. Arthur was the creator of the Valium/Librium epidemic of the 60s.
They all need jail time and their entire fortune should be forfeit. The government can apply it to drug treatment.
As for the museums...they were complicit. Did they ever ask where rhe money came from? I knew 20 years ago. Did they do due diligence.? They need to return the blood mony to the US government and let them direct it towards treating those the Sacklers harmed.
The Sackler name will live in infamy (unless they use some of their biklions to buy a really good PR firm).
14
The only significant difference between El Chapo and the Sacklers is the Sacklers were licensed and El Chapo was not.
16
@Eric Build Trump’s wall around the Purdue Pharmaceutical plants. MAGA
4
Is there someone other than me on this list who requires daily doses of oxicodone - level pain killers to SURVIVE chronic pain with daily acute breakout incidents?
(anyone who can honestly say “yeh, I need opioids so I can sleep or stand up, or otherwise change position without screaming or prepare a simple meal, etc. but I don’t take them or drink or pop dangerous alternatives to what the doc gives me” is either a dangerous masochist or a liar.
Someone mixing dangerous cocktails of alcohol and antihistamines IS on very dangerous ground.
(If you want to talk about meds that DON’T belong on the market, anyone taking daily doses of acetaminophen (Tylenol), especially more than 650 mg a day, needs a friend with a type-matched liver willing to donate half - a good possibility of necessity that becomes a sure thing if you take a couple of 500 mg capsules and a shot of booze equivalent a day.
I agree new fed regs which require folks like me to take @50% of Roxicodone as long acting OxiContin doesn’t get as effective a treatment for major chronic 100% debilitating pain as they would with pure breakthrough prescriptions set by MDs not politicians - some may be better off with ‘Contin.
The rest of you have no idea what the world of pain is like just because you had pain and got better. You don’t remember pain - we’d all be only children if you could.
I’ve been living with this pain since 1999.
Your comments sicken me - you have NO IDEA what you’re talking about.
Please go away.
9
Millions take these without any problems and they have helped the suffering of many. This is just white people desperately making excuses for their drug addicts. This will backfire . It will cause needless suffering while junkies will still be junkies blaming someone else.
1
@Hellen
Two things can be true at once, Helen.
The problem isn't Oxycontin, the problem is Sacklers.
It sounds to me like you're just fine with minorities dying by the tens of thousands as long as white people do, too.
Here's a flash: They always have.
Its just they use their cash and their privilege to hide it.
If you're going to party about people dying, I'd think at least you'd be happy that secret is out of the closet.
As for 'helping the suffering of many', no need to stop, except for the knee-jerk, too-late response of politicians and lawyers (and liability insurers), but even that would go better with a little honest prescribing information.
If you need to see white people dying, I'm sorry for your life.
6
@Hellen Oh, I see, Hellen. If the white people reestablish ties with the museum....no, wait, if the museums stop taking drugs from white people...no, wait, if....no, wait, it might actually be better if you explain the comment yourself in order to avoid this confusion.
Museums should take the Sackler gifts and donate them to victim relief!
Add Philip Morris to the evil donors list.
4
I used to go to the Metropolitan Museum about once a week - until I read the story in the New Yorker magazine about the how the Sackler family profited from deliberately and knowingly addicting so many poor Americans.
Couldn't walk past the Sackler wing of the museum and I couldn't walk past the David Koch fountain outside.
You can't buy class. And no, benefactors of art and artists have not always been such despicable human beings.
9
What is not said is that the morality of the super wealthy now control the educational, medical and cultural identity of America, a nation that was founded on Artists resisting just such a thing. They "own" education, medicine and culture as the new aristocrats. You could almost say that it's racial if you were a racist. But I don't believe in racial profiling, especially when the glories of Europe were built on so many revolutionary artists who were against such "branding" around wealth, religion, race and sexuality. REH. artistic director, the Magic Circle Opera Repertory Ensemble.
4
One could think that the Sacklers, along with other überrich families who donate to cultural and social causes, don't really want/need their names plastered all over their charitable contributions, but the facts speak otherwise. They want their names out there and they are embarrassed and taken aback when their names becomes associated with something negative. It is a dilemma for both parties. These art institutions need sponsors, but these sponsors all too often have shady if not short-of-criminal backgrounds. Where to draw the line? Or as the meme goes: “Would you live with a stranger if he paid you one million pounds?’ She said she would. ‘And if be paid you five pounds?’ The irate lady fumed: ‘Five pounds. What do you think I am?’ The lawyer replied: ‘We’ve already established that. Now we are trying to determine the degree.” We steal from other cultures. We steal respectability. What won't we steal, and to what end? Examine your motives, dear Sacklers and dear museums.
When I read the details about the corporate greed of the Sackler family, which has resulted in what could justifiably be called mass murder, I feel the same revulsion and outrage that I felt after the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal, India in 1984, which killed more than 10,000 at the time and continues to shorten the lives of many today. Sackler money is blood money.
2
Am I missing something? In your article there is no mention of Beth Macy's best selling recent book "Dopesick; Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America". Was this best seller not a critical voice in this saga of wealth versus the people? Is there a reason her work was ignored?
9
Perhaps we should also take a look at the role of the artist and patron. I recently contacted CJ Hendry, an artist of little renown currently patronized by Joss Sackler, the wife of David Sackler. I asked Ms Hendry " if the manufacturer of Zyklon B wrote you a check would you take it?".
Her answer was "yes".
3
I would like to see a new trend in accepting donations by all philanthropies - no naming of buildings after the givers, no branding whatsoever. If it isn't enough to do good in the first place, then why do it? It's just paid advertising and the organizations that accept the money have to know that. They're being bought. I know that it would probably reduce the amount of donations since it seems that rich people like to see their names in big letters in public. But my bet is that it would also most likely reduce the embarassment of having to admit that you've been in bed with scoundrels and thieves since they would have no incentives to give where there's no gain.
6
It is also time for the AMA and AHA to cut its ties to Purdue and the Sacklers.
5
@Charles Denman Nonsense. They produce a legally prescribed drug. If I were the Sacklers, I would pull Oxy from the market and watch everyone squirm begging for them to bring it back.
2
@CAtaxman
The drug isn’t the problem, it’s the relentless criminal pushing of it by the family for inappropriate conditions and one hundred pill prescriptions, the extras of which often find their way into the wrong hands, that are the problem.
Don’t you dare make me live in excruciating pain in the recovery time after a serious surgery or car accident.
4
@CAtaxman
They make a legally prescribed medication.
They market it illegally based on fraudulent prescribing information, which is why so many legitimate patients become (still) addicted and die.
That OK with you?
You could crush Purdue and still have all the Oxy you need.
6
Why not boycott institutions for fostering anti-opioid hysteria?
For blatant failures to embrace The Institute of Medicine's 2011 "national priority" "blueprint" to redress the appalling UNDERtreatment of chronic pain. As the Times' own David Leonhardt's compellingly underscored last year, opioids can "be highly effective medications that make the difference between a functional and dysfunctional life." Only adequate analgesia, moreover, can reverse the loss of brain matter often progressing from ongoing agony, as Hamburg's leading researcher Prof. Arne May documented.
The IOM concluded that most people "use their prescribed [opioids] properly . . . and should not be stigmatized or denied access because of [others'] misdeeds or carelessness." "Most patients who are administered opioids for chronic pain behave differently from patients who abuse opioids and do not ever demonstrate behaviors consistent with craving, loss of control or compulsive use." So far as I know, the extensively sourced science on which the IOM soundly based its 2011 blueprint lies unrefuted.
Many data indicate opioid fatalities have INcreased with increased restrictions on legal medicines pushing agonized patients to black markets. How many fatalities aren't actually severe allergic reactions or lethal shock from sudden, severe (undermedicated) pain?
How about drs/orgs endangering lives refusing to prescribe NIH-endorsed 1st-line treatment for Myoclonic seizure activity (benzodiazepines)?
4
@Mark Couldn't agree more. The Sacklers have done nothing wrong, but if I were them, I would pull OxyContin off the market. Completely. Do it without notice and see how long it takes before the Feds and state are begging them to resume manufacturing.
1
A fair solution would be for the museums to accept the money and for the company to donate it anonymously.
1
The Oxycontin I took during a month spent in a post-operative Skilled Nursing Unit enabled to spend my days and nights free of very severe pain. After being discharged, I gradually reduced my prescription dosage. I did not become an addict and am most pleased that this medication was available.
4
@Quiet Waiting
The cause of the pain and the amount of drugs needed to relieve suffering depends on the individual person.
Not all people have your high level of pain tolerance and mental control to self release themselves from the pain drugs.
Addiction chances can be impacted by genetics and environment.
I took OXie for 1 day after a tooth implant woke up the next day with a headache, googled it and found it was the start of addiction - stopped taking immediately and replace with large dose of Tylenol - thank you. Told my dental surgeon to prescribe something else in the future if I'm in need.
We both were lucky - not all are so lucky.
3
NSAIDs are the best pain reliever for dental pain and procedures. The pharma sales machines at Purdue convinced Dentists with misleading info that opioids were better. The Sacklers should be criminally charged.
3
@Quiet Waiting And we are all glad for you -- but the problem is the gross mis-use of this product with staggering numbers of deaths. Every time I read the numbers it's hard not to believe they are battle mortalities!
2
“Behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” With this in mind, nonprofits would have to say no to nearly all billionaire philanthropists.
5
Build a wall around them.
1
that's good - it's basically drug money
2
The Stanford family was called out in 1975 when students voted to change the schools mascot to the
"Robber Barrons"
https://www.businessinsider.com/in-1975-stanford-voted-to-have-its-mascot-be-the-robber-barons-2016-6
But reputation laundering via philanthropy has a rich history that goes back much further than that.
2
Outrage? Now? Why now? Is it because the attempts to hide the problem and pretend it was a suburban/rural issue failed?
3
Boy oh boy, the internet's connectivity and the 24 hour news cycle sure do make it hard to buy respectability...
2
As a long time M.D., I say don't forget the idiotic doctors who believe, and still believe, what the drug companies and the smartly-dressed men and women representing them have said about these opiates. And all other medications too, for that matter. Those doctors are just as much to blame as the crooked drug companies and those who work for them.
12
The Sackler's bought shelved compounds that other large pharmaceutical companies held and refused to market because they were known to be so addictive. But Sackler's paid big money to some mid-tier reps who weren't being promoted elsewhere and laid out huge bonuses based on numbers of scripts, instead of market share which was typically used to incentify reps so they go after competitors' business, not bribe doctors. They also gave their reps very larger expense accounts. These reps and all reps that wouldn't touch that stuff knew it was completely unethical and dangerous, but the FDA let them run wild. Abbott where I worked held a oral lollipop with fentanyl called Actiq, but would not market it, because we made Similac for infants as well, and foresaw horror stories of a kid finding lollipops meant to relax people before their anesthesia kicked in prior to surgery (typically extreme fear of the mask put over their faces), and only sold to hospitals. Purdue's fentanyl was sold in absurd doses. Sackler's intentionally addicted and killed millions for cold hard cash.....basically pharmaceutical mercenaries.
33
I spoke with a pharma rep who confirmed this. Told me Purdue gave direct cash incentives to reps for each Oxy Rx! When the jig was up many of those same reps jumped ship over to Reckitt Benckiser, manufacturer of Suboxone and began their push to flood the zone with substitute opioids. Of course any heroin addict will tell ya how they would sell their suboxone for cash which they would then use to buy more heroin, reverting back to suboxone on the days they knew they would be drug tested. Wait till all of these suboxone addicts attempt to wean off that opioid. They will be in a very dark place indeed.
6
@sleeve
As a former Nursing Manager for a large multi specialty medical group, you are spot on. See previous comments on pharmaceutical reps. They are a nauseating group many of whom have sold their souls to the devil just to get their bonuses.
5
Outing the worst of the robber barons is at least a start. The Sacklers' charitable donation history reminds me of feudal lords purchasing indulgences to get into heaven (although I don't know whether feudal lords were able to deduct the cost of indulgences from their taxes, or had buildings named after them for purchasing the indulgences in the first place.)
6
“The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.”
Shakespeare was prescient. This is the call-out culture on a rampage. The blame constituency, you might call it. In age of inequality, here’s a wealthy family trying to redress the balance, to give something back, and they are demonized for the lapses of a few family members.
Bad lapses, no doubt, but for such a family, with such a record, shouldn’t the emphasis be on redress, on fixing the problem, on making amends. Rather, moral outrage seems to be an end in itself.
What about all the children who will never see the art exhibit, or participate in the educational program? The baby is let out with the bath water. What have we gained, but feeding the virtue-signaling self-love of a few angry activists on the far left?
5
@Ron Cohen their "bad lapses" have left thousands dead across the country. This is not a left or right issue. It's a question of whether we let the rich and powerful mislead and control us and reap untold fortunes as a result. Our gain is not virtue-signaling but showing, in some small way, that we see them and see what they have done, and they can't buy their way to good publicity.
5
Accept their money and remove their names from all buildings and annual reports, enriching culture and institutions while eliminating them from the institutional record. It remains to be seen if they would continue to be “generous” anonymously.... Somehow, I doubt it.
14
That the Sackler family has generously supported museums, numerous medical and educational institutions speaks volumes the dominating part money plays in American public life.
Politicians are supposed to be public servants, yet without a very large quantity of cash, it is impossible for them to get elected to public office. Consequently the rich, the corporations, the banks get de facto control over the political process by financing political campaigns. In principle politicians, either Republicans or Democrats in the U.S, are supposed to work for the people and fight for the common good, but in reality they rely on and obey corporate masters.
“Robber baron” term was term describe American capitalists from the late 19th century who used questionable and less than ethical methods to attain their wealth. J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie were all very wealthy Americans who were called robber barons. This pejorative name was given to many American industrialists and businessmen who were believed to only be interested in lining their pockets and cared little, if at all, for the average working man.
If you compare the malfeasance, Sacklers will pale in to insignificant before the 19th Century robber barons P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.
Boycotting Sacklers without resorting to similar action against Robber Baron founded establishments is the height of hypocrisy!!
3
As a native of Pittsburgh I have long been aware of the "conflict" between the generosity of men like Carnegie and Frick to education and the arts and their despicable business practices. I spent most of my life in North Carolina where tobacco money has made the entire state culturally richer but arguably less healthy not to mention the rest of the world.
I understand that the active role of the Sacklers in perpetuating the opioid crisis puts them in a class by themselves, or at least at the head of a class that arguably includes the Kochs and others. That said, great fortunes are virtually always accumulated on the backs of others.
All of us who enjoy the arts in cultural institutions today are also enjoying the largesse of people with ethics we likely disapprove of. It can feel righteous to reject the tainted generosity of the Sacklers, but as long as we enjoy the benefits of yesterday's and today's robber barons and their progeny our hands are all a little bit dirty.
4
@JohnFred - I know what you mean; always feel a little dirty going to Crystal Bridges in Bentonville.
1
@JohnFred. I grew up in Pittsburgh a long time ago, not too far from Homestead. At the time the name Carnegie was still a dirty word to some older people and they avoided as much as possible anything with his name on it. That was difficult to do if you were a student who needed to do research for a school project or just wanted to borrow a book as the libraries were all funded by the Carnegie endowment.
With the disappearance of the steel industry in Pgh the history of the Carnegies and Fricks in the city has also possibly eroded, been smoothed out or largely forgotten. It may be that they are known mainly for their libraries, concert halls and art collections.
Just as questioning the motives of some popular celebrity or saint known for good works and charity, it is considered bad taste to question the motives of the old robber barons who could spend what should have been other people’s money in such good taste.
3
When you think about the treatment of El Chapo, not only the arrest, but solitary confinement, the way he was hideously manhandled by guards as he was led in and out of the courtroom, actions that would seem to belong to an oppressive and brutal regime, and then you think about the Sacklers and Purdue, whose actions have produced an outcome very likely just as destructive as those of the Mexican drug lord, and you know exactly the dimensions of the new nobility in the US, and everyone else, particularly, of course, the poor. The situation is a repetition of the worst of Western history and is a worldwide trend. Kudos to the UK for taking the lead in bringing the challenge.
15
The Sackler's were amoral capitalist who used the prestige of cultural institutions to gain legitimacy. This is an old story and the role of these institutions in many ways. But what about the regulators? What happened with the the Opioid crises (FDA) is the same thing that happened withe Boeing (FAA) with Fracking (EPA) and now on deck with cannabis. Where are the regulators? They have jobs and are not doing them and need to be held accountable as well.
10
@Harris Silver
They're not held accountable or responsible because look who's in charge. The master Robber Baron himself. He's made a mockery of every federal oversight agency. Nothing will change until he's taken down.
2
@Harris Silver
Unfortunately, the F.D.A.'s ability to regulate prescription drug safety has been hollowed out over the years - politicians on both sides of the aisle have seen to it. Check out Open Secrets to see how much your Congressman/woman has taken from Big Pharma.
3
The Times has reported this very day that the Sackler Family will pay a fine of $275 million to settle a suit in Oklahoma. However, paying a fine is not enough- it's NOT justice, ladies and gentlemen! When people actively conspire to make money at the expense of other people's lives, in MY view that is the most heinous sort of criminal activity one can engage in. Hiding behind a "corporate facade", individuals nevertheless willingly chose to deceive people in order to sell more of a medication that has been shown to have tragic consequences when used without proper care and supervision. The entirety of the issues regarding Oxycontin have been detailed repeatedly by this paper and I am disgusted by what I've read. The idea that individuals from the Sackler family will not face criminal prosecution is a disgrace to the concept of "equal justice under law" by any sensible reading of that concept.
23
@ManhattanWilliam
Just about no executives from the pharmaceutical industry ever face prosecution. There currently is no "equal justice under the law" when it comes to this industry. 70,000 per year - dead from opioids; 100,000 per year dead from prescription drugs taken as prescribed.
2
These are the numbers: the Sackler family made something like $4 billion in profits from oxycontin in one ten-year period and 300,000 people have died from overdoses in the opioid crisis.
In a just world they would be looking at the confiscation of their entire fortune and jail time. However, we do not live in a just world and people are still dying.
32
museums need to go further and pull their name off of everything
this goes for universities too
get their name off
their must be clause that allows for that -
their name is now rightfully associated with profiteering
their name = willfully engaging in actions that destroyed lives and cost governments billions
they should be in jail and company shut down for what they did
it will matter to them if their name comes down -
8
...and if the Sacklers had lost THEIR son or daughter because of opioid addiction that began with their wealth-building Oxycontin, would their perspectives have changed? Hypothetical, of course, but just imagine.
Perhaps offer a life insurance policy with each prescription. Let the patient (and parents) beware!
1
When I think of all the people who rot in jail because of victimless crimes connected with marijuana and then read about a family which rakes in billions of money manufacturing a highly addictive substance I want to scream. Wouldn't it be more "philanthropic" to spend money on research about making this drug less addictive?
7
How do you understand, and reconcile, the hypocrisy of the Sacklers with opiods, similar to the Koch's with carbon and oil , doing so much harm in 'health care' and the environment, while being hailed as 'patrons' of the Arts? Must selfishness and greed really be part of it...without calling by it's name, naked hypocrisy?
6
A novel idea--that our cultural institutions might stand for something besides their own profit. I'll believe it when I see museums and performance spaces refusing to be advertisements for the Koch brothers, who have done perhaps more than anyone to normalize fascism & conspiracy theories.
10
This is the other side of money talks. In this case, dirty money.
The Sackler family & Perdue Pharma have knowingly failed the public. They continued to push Oxycontin to physicians & areas of the country where the most vulnerable populations were. They refused to take responsibility for the multitude of deaths from their product. When things became more apparent, Perdue even considered bankruptcy as an option.
Greed is evil. Sackler's have blood on their hands.
These institutions are doing the right, albeit difficult thing.
7
All who have enjoyed the contributions by the Sackler family to museums around the world thank them.
Sacklers: how about using some of your billions in profits to establish and maintain drug treatment programs to help whole communities devastated by the produced you produce and market?
There may be no rehab halls or pavilions named for you but surely you’ll receive a tax break.
2
Stop taking donations from them, but more importantly, erase their names from these institutions.
11
I can not blame museums for dropping the Sacklers donations like hot rocks. It is difficult to see their wealth as anything but blood money at this point. As for philanthropy, Theresa Sackler could direct her charity to the important work of fighting opioid addiction. Perhaps the foundation could fund a no-cost anti-opioid dug and/or educational program.
2
Museums are "shocked, simply shocked" at the actions of the Sacklers?
Just like they're "shocked" when some of the looted art that that have in their collections, either given by rich donors or acquired by museums themselves with clear lack of due diligence for provenance?
This seems really about PR and creating distance from the now-toxic Sacklers, than any real display or morality or commitment to ethical practices by museums.
11
I agree, yet I welcome the change. This change in moral compass came about because of the great amount of public pressure that has been applied. The mounting guilt comes for the public disgust, and this is a good thing. Keep up the public shaming and perhaps in the future we will see reparations and the return of stolen works. PR or not, let justice be the result.
5
This is what happens when unregulated capitalism reigns. Lying about the drug with one hand while the other donates huge amounts to highly visible causes to improve their self image and make people more willing to look away. We see this in politics as well. No system, in the extreme, is perfect.
Deregulation may benefit the pocketbook of the 1% that can look elsewhere for safe products and safe places to live. It does not protect the common man or woman. Government has an obligation to protect its citizens, especially in our complex world where we can no longer grow our own food or create our own products.
15
The Sacklers should in no way be canonized by museums. Purdue pharmaceuticals has clearly done a thorough risk benefit analysis knowing intimately well all of the risks associated with opioids yet have chosen to pursue aggressive marketing tactics anyway. These drugs were designed to make them a fortune without regard to any human suffering and indeed they have. To be fair, opiods, if very tightly controlled, can be a godsend for people suffering unmanageable pain. However, the Sacklers, very conveniently, have made no provisions for doctors to save their patients from addiction, and offer no post addiction structure for people who become enslaved to their products. Their only apparent intention has been to get as many doctors as they can to over prescribe these drugs thereby addicting and killing people. In the wake of all the money they make, they should be legally mandated to supply endowments for rehabilitation programs, recovery facilities, and further research initiatives that focus expressly on eradicating opioid addiction. Of course this would greatly inconvenience their massive flow of money which they use to gain ego driven status in the art world. The whole business disgusts me and I probably visit museums less because of it
13
@WGM
No one was actually twisting the arms of those sales reps, doctors,and pharmacies who were complicit in sales pitching, prescribing and filing the prescriptions.
All of them should be criminally liable for the shambles they created.
For you to visit museums "less" is certainly not the answer. In fact, you should visit them more, in order to support them.
2
@awsexton. I would guess that there were doctors who faced malpractice suits for prescribing these drugs if they failed to monitor their patients for misuse and addiction. Others lose their license to practice and even face jail time for running pill mills and practicing as Dr.Feel Goods. Trump’s former doctor comes to mind, although he just got bumped to another job.
I have a tendency to go easy on the Sackler family, since in the 1970s and 80s I worked for William Douglas McAdams, the advertising agency owned by Arthur Sackler, a man who died before the family's troubles began.
But, beyond that sympathy, I learned back then how Arthur un-generously negotiated his donations, always insisting on the label of the Sackler name; without the name, no gift. It now seems to be a good time for those who receive donations with provisions for self-naming to change their ways. Don't allow it.
And then there is the the AMA. What is their responsibility, and the responsibility of doctors, with or without the backing of the AMA, an institution that was slow to act against the murderous effects of nicotine addiction and even now is not mentioned in news stories about the murders committed by opioides?
Could or should the American Medical Association be sued? How about internists, GPs and other doctors who over-prescribed addictive medications to their patients? Are they responsible?
4
As usual the press has it backwards, going after the wrong people as responsible for the opioid problem. You can blame those who invest their money in businesses for the purpose of making more money. That is who we are: capitalism. Go after those who are responsible for making drugs outrageous, easily available, go after those who prescribe the medicine irresponsible. Hint: doctors. America truly lives in a dream world, but times are changing. The emergence of competition from the EU and China, and other nations of the East are making it harder and harder for Americans to continue living in their bubble.
1
Wow - what a complicated and fraught issue. Do we take the money, some of which is blood money, or do we harm ourselves by rejecting the money and have it go to less worthy causes like buying politicians? Organizations should closely examine their donation policies and tailor them to modern reality - clauses such as "if there is any scandal over the money, we keep the money but remove your name" - or "if this money is the result of a crime, you must pay us triple and we will donate the extra to the victims - in our name." Be creative.
4
@Tony. Here’s an idea. It could go to pay taxes in a bracket that is somewhere on a level with a person’s wealth.
What we need now are safe injection sites with clean needles, testing of the drugs, counseling, meetings and rehab literature. Sackler money could go a long way here in Philadelphia to help save some of these addicts and turn their lives around. Art is great, I love art and I live for it, human lives are more important and the Sacklers need to save the lives they helped ruin with that poison.
11
So, what should the tainted billionaires do with their money? Buy guns? I say, take it; take as much of their money as possible and recycle it into humane activities. Also, stress the importance of the billionaires continuing to develop therapeutic drugs and ways of reducing their harm.
2
Oxycontin is abused but it is also life-saving when recovering from surgery where pain must be adequately managed in order to participate in rehabilitation. It preserves quality of life in people suffering from intractable cancer pain. I have been there and I am profoundly grateful to the Sacklers both for the relief of my pain and for their generosity to the arts over MANY years. The drug is very effective, of course they made a profit from it, and unfortunately it is abused particularly BECAUSE it is so effective. The Sacklers have been generous with their money (unlike the Koch brothers). In this rush to deal with the opioid crisis, let's not forget about the far larger number of people in pain who need this drug and who do not misuse it.
33
@Dancer Here, here. Most deaths from opioids are the result of people who want to get high overdosing on heroin or fentanyl. Politicians and the media lump this tragic phenomenon together with the occasional person out of tens of millions of prescribed Oxycontin and similar drugs for pain who abused these pills. This gives the pols something simple to do -- make life difficult for patients in pain, prescribing doctors and pharmacists. Now that every last pill is tracked online, doctors are loathe -- no, terrified -- to prescribe at all. Meanwhile patients are in pain and junkies keep killing themselves with heroin.
10
As a physician I would like to point out a multitude of falsehoods.
Opioids, like oxycontin, are ineffective in the treatment of chronic pain, are highly addictive and easily diverted. They were intended for end of life cancer pain and hospice care which is where they belong.
40
@thewiseking
They are also highly effective in post-surgical pain and although a few people have become addicted after being introduced to them post surgery MOST people do NOT become addicted after using them in that way. And while it’s now not de rigueur they can also be effective in chronic pain - not everyone escalates their use. As another physician, see the recent New England Journal for a case study on how limiting them destroyed a patient.
6
It's about time museums and others do the right thing and stop taking tainted money from deplorable millionaires.
1
@Jacquie, oh please. If you peel the layers of the onion back just a little bit, every billionaire, every Fortune 500 company and every foreign plutocrat has some deplorable skeletons hanging in their closets. If we started to scrutinize every corporate donation and protested everything that seemed unethical, there would be no museums, no charitable foundations, no hospitals. Money makes the world run, and sometimes we have to hold our noses and take the money, knowing that we can at least try to do something positive with it.
In the case of the brutal murder of Khashoggi we have waited in vain for a similar concerted and resolute response from the many American entities that secured huge Saudi endowments and other similar financial benefits such as the Ivy League schools.
5
Talking about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
2
Why isn't anyone reporting on the Sackler family's original fortune made by Valium? They are responsible for unethical marketing practices of that drug and misled a congressional inquiry into Arthur Sackler's business practices. A section of the Sackler family disavowing from the Opioid Crisis when their fortune was made by addicting housewives to Valium is specious and misleading. It would be useful if the New York Times did a deep dive into their entire history and how they made the money that allowed them to donate the Egyptian Wing in the first place. The Met, with a nominal amount of due diligence, would have been aware of that at the time. And no one is talking about that or aware of it.
8
It's truly stunning how some people, no matter how much money they're accumulated, can never have enough and always want more, and have no problem causing the death of thousands of innocent people to get it. The $275,000,00 is pretty cheap, and not enough to pay for all those lives lost.
4
Perhas the family could redeem themselves by putting the money they used to put into the arts into adiction research, safe injection sites, and free drug rebailitation centers.
6
It might help if non-profit organizations got together and developed philanthropic standards for the money they will and won't take. This might shame corporate entities into better, less lethal behavior. This job shouldn't fall on the shoulders of the non-profits, but since government won't do the job, such action might save some lives.
8
All this misplaced attention is being paid to the children of the now deceased founders of a single pharma co that makes a single drug, which has many competitors, which has been invaluable to millions who’ve suffered acute or chronic pain, and which is safe if used as indicated.
Addiction is a complex social issue. Having a meaningful conversation about it will take more than just pointing the finger at the 7 or 8 heirs to a billion dollar fortune.
2
They behaved very badly.
3
@Eric Addiction is a complex issue, but not what the Sacklers did to promote the over-use of Oxycontin, by claiming it was non-addictive.
8
@Alex Melman Exactly. They lied and mislead doctors and patients about how addictive the drug is, as well as pushed higher dosages on patients to increase sales. They profited off of people's reliance on the drug.
4
Well as another commenter suggested, take their money and then give all of it to public health clinics, especially those treating opioid addiction. And if the Sacklers complain issue a press release detaining threats by them to cut off donations.
4
Why does our government not indict individuals and executives who are responsible for all the harm and death inflicted by the opioids, in addition to the 100,000 innocent victims of other prescription drugs taken as prescribed? While this shunning of Sackler money is a good public rebuke, where is the justice?
11
The issue with museums accepting donations from the Sackler family is more complex than it appears. For example, what about the gifts to cultural organizations from the Koch brothers whose environmentally unsound business model may have harmed far more people than opioids. Should the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Metropolitan Opera have refused these gifts? Large donations, from wealthy individuals, to cultural and other non profits have long been a common practice irrespective of how the money was made. Is it time to start applying another standard to determine the acceptability of any particular gift?
3
@Benjamin Hodes Maybe it is time to start applying higher standards for accepting gifts. Nobody is suggesting that the Sacklers' donations are unacceptable and the Koch brothers' are. They're all unacceptable.
2
@Benjamin Hodes NONE of these "philanthropic" families would donate one red cent if it weren't for the corresponding tax write-offs they receive from Uncle Sam...ie...you and me. I say TAX ALL INCOME and allow no charitable deductions, period! You wanna show me how "charitable" you are? Donate AFTER you pay taxes on the money. Same goes for religious contributions. Religion takes in billions of dollars and pays zero taxes. That's money out of Average Joe's pocket.
14
I wonder how many of these institutions will similarly reject donations from physicians who prescribed all that OxyContin.
I have no problem with holding the Sacklers and Purdue responsible for their misbehavior but we have to remember that if they bribed doctors to write all those unnecessary prescriptions then those who accepted those bribes should be similarly held to account.
I see in The Times today that the state of Oklahoma settled its suit against Purdue and will proceed against other opioid manufacturers. I'll bet the state did nothing to act against those who prescribed the opioids. It's easy suing companies that are outside your state; it takes much more courage to take action against people in your state who can vote against you.
7
“The current press attention that these legal cases in the United States is generating has created immense pressure on the scientific, medical, educational and arts institutions here in the U.K., large and small, that I am so proud to support,” Theresa Sackler, the chair of the Sackler Trust, said in a statement. “This attention is distracting them from the important work that they do.”
Its not "the attention" that's the problem here.
The concerted, elaborate, fully aware campaigns of misinformation, outright lies, bribery, corruption of the medical profession in furtherance of what can only be termed mass murder for profit is.
Personally, I think the museums are both wrong and dishonest in their response.
Were it not for the outcry these august institutions would have no problem continuing to accept support from this ugly family.
On the other hand, The Sackler Trust (he-he) is neither the family nor the vile corporation, and it does indeed do wonderful things.
The correct response, I believe, would be to accept Sackler money with no hint whatsoever of the source. A career of absolutely anonymous charity might be a teensy start at well-deserved penance.
Opening a network of free medical clinics (at least here in the US, where such anachronisms still fill a need) might be a worthy next step, along with support for victims and families.
6
It’s interesting that all these free millions keep going to art museums and not free health care clinics in impoverished areas or free drug treatment programs.
I’m a big supporter of people getting any drugs they need for pain of surgery or major illness but, again, no one person or family needs or deserves multiple hundreds of millions of dollars, especially since it’s the scientists and not the spawn of these company owners and leaders that do the hard work of discovery. The bulk of this capital should flow from these families in the form of progressive taxes back to the government and redirected to where it is needed most for the health and welfare of the least in society. If that form of socialism was good enough for the space program, funded by high taxes and a progressive system, then it’s good enough for health care for all.
And in the case of this family which are little more than hardened drug pushers, they should be prosecuted and forced to pay restitution to all those affected by its tactics.
Art museums, like real estate, seem to serve to launder questionable money and burnish reputations. The reason the Sacklers give to museums and not to the poor is ultimately selfish. They want the glitter and glamour museums give them in return, not the gratitude of destitute child.
14
Hopefully the same outrage will see Trump’s name removed from the many civic spaces crowned with his golden moniker. Like the ice skating rink in Central Park.
3
As a bystander to this whole "opioid crisis" I am in no position to pass judgement on the Sackler family's guilt. I can, however, say that art museums are always happy to get donations and purposely remain ignorant of donors' backgrounds. They're not unlike churches when they see you approaching will bulging pockets; all are welcome. That is, of course, until that ignorance becomes an embarrassment.
30
Some of those , correctly, lauding the efficacy and need for SHORT TERM use of OxyContin, especially those with personal experience who didn’t develop an addiction and are repeating the old canard that addiction is a moral failing, while absolving the Sackler of responsibility, need to read this NYT article, which describes how this drug was (possibly) criminally , immorally and greedily marketed with little regard for the chaos and tragedy it would bring.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer
13
@Drels
I agree completely with your comment and helpful inclusion of the earlier article about the Sackler brothers, all connected with health care, all very clever in their marketing strategies, and all stupendously greedy.
The title of this article which lists the family as merely "connected" is a tremendous understatement.
2
This emerging public health crisis was reported by Art Van Zee MD based on his observations over 20 years ago
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/
5
@thewiseking Thank you for posting this link. Eye-opening indeed.
1
I’m a little confused... What is it they are accused of doing? Funding the development and distribution of Oxycontin? Just looks like a soothing scapegoat to me. The opioid crisis has structural causes: Overprescription by doctors, encouragement of overprescription bu the Sackler’s company, an unhealthy relationship between medicine and money, a lack of addiction awareness and treatment options in communities all over the US, stigmatization and criminalization of addiction...
Not that I’m vindicating the Sacklers, but unless there’s open evidence that they actively encouraged their company to push a narrative of non-addictiveness contrary to available evidence at the time (a-la big tobacco and the oil industry with respect to climate change...), I don’t see a reason to sever ties. Directing our anger towards big money alone (by chopping off our own arms by cutting off donations) unjustly absolves the politicians, criminal justice institutions, and medical institutions who share blame for this crisis, and does nothing to solve the ongoing problem.
3
I absolutely need Oxycontin to help keep my severe pain in check. Without an opiate I could barely get out of bed or go to work. Oxycontin has helped me immensely..
Let's not forget that most opiate problems are with illegal use by criminals. Don't try to punish law abiding patients with criminals. I used to get sideways looks from my pharmacy...Now they understand how helpful the meds are for me..
1
@David Clarkson There is, in fact, evidence that the Sacklers pushed the idea that Oxycontin is non-addictive. They didn't just create the drug. They marketed it to anyone and everyone, claiming that it's safe and non-addictive.
10
@David Clarkson
Read this earlier article ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/health/sacklers-purdue-oxycontin-opioids.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer) to become better informed.
4
I’m no fan of the pharmaceutical industry, but this is a case of cutting off your own nose to spite your face. Especially in an age where government funding of the arts, unlike in the civilized world, is all but non-existent.
Undoubtedly, the Sackler’s company makes the stuff, BUT who prescribes and distributes the stuff?
That’s right. Doctors, hospitals, so-called “pain clinics” and others. The medical industry.
Without a distribution network, things don’t sell.
If things don’t sell, manufacturing stops.
Supply and demand.
It’s been very clear for quite some time, that opioids can be easily obtained, abused and downright dangerous, but there’s been no slowdown in how and how much they’re distributed.
People are pointing fingers in the wrong direction.
66
@Mr.Reeee
This is true, but they also misled the doctors (I am a family practice R.N. and I heard my doctors say this) and were subjected to very fierce and untruthful sales pitches. They were assured, years ago, that it was NOT addictive and it does deal with pain very well. They were pressured and lied to by Purdue and that is Purdue's fault.
106
Patients who feel they need painkilling drugs may be pressuring their doctors to extend their prescriptions beyond the limits. It is possible to be addicted to pain as well as the drugs that alleviate it. Doctors should push alternative techniques whenever possible. But we are spoiled these days to make drugs do the work.
6
Yes, and pain is not a disease nor is is able to be accurately accessed person to person. Smiley faces are not science. Pain management needs to understand more before they can justify the deaths of 80,000 people a year. And I do have empathy for those in pain. The stigma of addiction prevents our population from having a realistic sense of this drug disaster.
6
Meaningless gesture unless the museums return the money they previously received.
1
The Sacklers have made massive gifts to medical schools and hospitals as well, notably Tufts, which directly abetted the rise of opioid prescribing.
It is remarkable to me that the medical community, which has more obvious ties to opioids, has not disavowed the Sacklers.
120
Apparently, some are considering their ties: “Other Sackler beneficiaries, including the Metropolitan Museum and the New York Academy of Science, are reviewing their donation policies as a result of publicity and legal actions surrounding the family and its company, Purdue Pharma, the maker of the groundbreaking, enormously profitable and frequently-abused painkiller OxyContin. Tufts University, which has a Sackler graduate school, announced on Monday that it had hired a former top federal prosecutor for Massachusetts to look into the university’s relationship with the family.”
5
@Luann Nelson
Yes, Tufts made that announcement today, almost a decade after the first litigation was filed with clear evidence that Purdue had lied about OxyContin’s addictiveness, and after many years of questioning by Boston area journalists.
It stinks to high heaven.
14
As a physician I am absolutely appalled by this. The Sacklers knowingly manufactured this devastating epidemic for profit. Like a pied piper they led our sons to an early grave.
16
Kudos to the great artist Nan Goldin, who survived her addiction to Oxy Contin and is now helping lead the movement to end the Sackler family's influence on U.S. museums.
The Sackler family has used blood money to try to buy respectability and influence.
The Sackler family has left tens of thousands of dead or addicted Americans in their wake.
An ER doctor mentioned this to me this month. He said he remembered when Oxy was coming onto the market, drug company representatives came to talk to the ER doctors. One bragged about Oxy "this is stronger than 10 Percocet." The doctor said he knew the drug companies were going to unleash a public health crisis with that drug.
137
@fast/furious
Goldin was an opioid addict and very experienced recreational drug user long before she took OxyContin. Pushing her way to the front of the OxyContin "victim" line is just ridiculous.
5
@fast/furious
I wonder if that ER doctor did anything when he saw his colleagues prescribing a drug he knew was going to lead to a public health crisis?
3
Art Van Zee, a physician down in Appalachia first reported and published on this public health crisis 20 years ago. Those who were dying were marginalized, despised or ignored, much like in the early days of the AIDS epidemic. Eventually, the epidemic spread, to the preppy belt in Connecticut, to Bel Air, to college campuses especially the elite mens D1 athletics programs. An activist celebrity artist then decided to "Act Up", the New Yorker wrote an article, and the institutions realized this problem could no longer be ignored.
12
Seems like the Sackler family should be building addiction treatment centers to help those suffering from addiction rather than building vanity projects in the high flying art world and at elite universities.
362
@KPH I totally agree KPH. Although a lover of the arts, the Sacklers should have been focusing on addiction research and treatment centers.
25
@KPH
This is an excellent idea. Let the Sackler family spend their fortune on ameliorating the harm their company caused rather than giving it to art museums.
37
@KPH
If the Sacklers started funding treatment centers that would be evidence of guilt. Their litigation budget is vast, but it would need to increase if they admitted that’s OxyContin was marketed to increase addiction. Purdue still denies it.
13
Good for the Brits. Come on US have a spine!
4
The Sacklers behind the Oxycontin marketing campaigns - and the coverups that followed - should be wearing orange jumpsuits and scrubbing prison hallways.
Really disgusting greed.
3
The ethical questions raised by philanthropy are well illustrated by the case of the Sacklers and OxyContin, but the issues are much broader, and can be very difficult to resolve. How do the folks in the UK who are now shunning Sackler money feel about restoring the Elgin marbles to their rightful place on the Parthenon?
6
I wish that museums would take that money and put it to good use--only instead of the "Sackler Wing" put a plaque the area "In Honor of the Family & Victims of the Opioid Crisis".
2
If only people were held accountable... What if the Sacklers were charged like street drug dealers? Think of the deterrent. Or the college admission scandal. If the kids were expelled from university, would it deter future bad behavior? You better believe it.
If Nixon had gone to jail, and Iran-Contra fully prosecuted, then perhaps we wouldn't have had the George Bush, or Donald Trump disasters.
No one will ever be held accountable, so we will never solve any problems.
16
I never understand this purity test.
If Philip Morris wanted to buy me a new house but stipulated that my mailbox had to read in big letters "Big Tobacco house" I would take that deal...every single time.
Does anyone honestly care that when you go to Lincoln Center you listen to the Opera in the Koch wing?
Our society's indelible brilliance is that charities exist and get money for free.
Its a remarkable achievement that we've convinced rich people to give billions upon billions for nothing in return. Just some people politely clapping for them during the annual fundraiser. Maybe they get their name in the playbill.
This is a bargain in every sense of the word. Let the .1% keeping getting their kicks from us being nice to them, I'll take my trip through the Met in exchange gladly!
9
@Arturo. yes, there are some who can just be bought.
4
What about the Koch brothers? When is the name coming off the David H. Koch theatre at Lincoln Center?
14
The Sackler wing at the Metropolitan dates from 1974. OxyContin was developed in 1996. If you take opioids, you know they’re addictive, just like cigarette smokers know their actions cause lung cancer. I’m sorry Nan Goldin has suffered, but, as a recovering heroin addict, what was she doing agreeing to take an opioid?! Yes, Purdue Pharmaceuticals is a rabidly greedy company with a potentially dangerous product, but they don’t strap you down and force it into you against your will with a feeding tube. Everyone points fingers, but acceptance of personal responsibility for one’s actions has fallen by the wayside. Everything is someone else’s fault.
14
@Sylvia Calabrese They didn't have to strap anyone down and force people to take it. Their years of lies and misinformation directed at both doctors and patients did the job well enough.
2
@Alex Melman As I said, just like cigarettes and the tobacco industry. Everyone smoked, doctors were pictured in cigarette ads, and everyone over 10 was targeted as a potential customer/user. But nobody who ever smoked regularly thought it was good for them.
1
It is interesting to me that no stories about the Sacklers ever mention that the family made an enormous fortune, and gave huge amounts to charitable institutions, before anyone ever heard of oxycontin. Specifically, their company sold Betadine, Senokot and MS Contin. Should art museums and universities give back the money, or refuse future contributions, derived from profits made by selling Betadine? I bet Betadine alone could have funded the wings at the Smithsonian, the Met and at Harvard.
6
I had major surgery last year. In the hospital, I was given OxyContin and morphine. The oxy did little for my pain, but made me more discombobulated than morphine alone, and it was stopped. I came home with a prescription for 100 tabs of morphine, which I used for a brief period. I have at least 60-70 pills left safely stored, unavailable to casual 'borrowers'. I'm lucky, because I hate the effects of opioids on my ability to think and function. I shouldn't have been prescribed so much, since leftover pills are a major entry vehicle for getting people hooked. Those who need pills long term should get them. Those whose need is probably for a more limited time should get a limited supply and be monitored. Doctors must make individual treatment plans rather than using a generic approach requiring less interaction.
(I'd also like to see research on the rise in opioid abuse and the decline in good paying factory, blue collar, and other middle class jobs, and what that means for our economy.)
Meanwhile, let's get real. Contributions to cultural and other institutions by the Sacklers, Kochs, Mercers and friends benefit them because they reduce tax liability, while appearing public spirited. The gestures are perhaps a little less grand when the value to the giver is considered.
The Sacklers and their acts provide object lessons for much that is out of kilter in society today. Follow the money and let's hope we can find some answers soon.
13
Members of the Sackler family ought to be criminally indicted for the premeditated and deliberate calculation to boost the addictive component in OxyContin which has directly resulted in the deaths of thousands and made it virtually impossible for others to stop abusing these painkillers. Sackler family members: Never mind donating money to a new hospital wing with your name on it - start building rehabs for those who are trying to recover from this scourge of an addictive substance that you knowingly marketed as non-addictive to medical professionals. We await your criminal indictments for subsidizing your bottom line of billions of dollars at the expense so many people who were completely unaware of the dangers.
15
My son has cancer. His physical pain from the disease and surgeries and treatments would be unbearable without Oxycontin.
6
@Ruth M.
As a cancer survivor (today) I very much appreciate your note. I hope your son gets all the palliative care he needs.
However, the Sacklers aren't being dunned for producing Oxycontin but for marketing it in a fashion that has created a tsunami of addiction. And then rolling around in the profits.
Best of luck to you and your family.
32
I understand the concerns of arts organizations and the problem of using "tainted" money.
I, for one, would take every penny I could get and continue to turn it into something good. I think this is important and almost mandated in the realm of medical research. And especially important in specific research into understanding addiction and advancing recovery treatments.
Take the money, but don't run. Walk it into making our world better. They have enough money to make a difference.
Oh, I almost forgot, don't under any circumstances give public credit to that family. No new buildings or museum wings named after them. No new research programs bearing their name. In fact, I think it would be very appropriate to name these good works after some of the individuals that have died from OxyCotin overdose. And where contractually possible (or sue to), change the name of current buildings and programs. Wipe their name from the face of the Earth.
Counteract the damage done by them and take any credit for good away from them. They certainly don't deserve to be revered in any way.
5
At some point physicians need to be blamed for this. They are, after all, the gatekeepers to these drugs. Without a prescription pad, no one can legally obtain any of these medications. Thus, I blame the doctors over prescribing medication that they should have known and likely did know is habit-forming. In an effort not to lose patients, physicians very often will do whatever it takes to keep their patients happy. Sometimes that includes writing for antibiotics that are unnecessary, and other times it involves keeping their patients pain-free even when the painkillers are not the best option.
8
Please do some further research. No doubt there are some oversubscribing physicians, but we are a country whose government, even regulation-wise, is run by corporations. Doctors are having to account for every pill they prescribe with mountains of paperwork, and they barely have time to practice their art. We have handed control over to a corrupt few, and doctors are puppets too.
1
@Claire Green Sorry, but I have seen my OWN doctors, otherwise highly respectable and decent, all but beg me to take a script for some minor procedure. Now they are e-Scribed in many states, but dispensed, nonetheless. My wife had rhinoplasty and was sent home with dozens of Oxy pills. She took one half, once. The rest were safely thrown away. Excepting cancer and immediate post op situations and during physiotherapy, there are many other modalities to relieve pain and they are not habit forming. We are a nation of people who will not endure ANY pain and our doctors are willing to cater to that no matter the wisdom.
1
@Claire Green Ah, it is not an art, it is a science and if you sell a car to someone and that car had bad brakes and that person died, you are responsible. If you are a doctor you are responsible for what you tell your patients to do. The oath you took included the words, "First do no harm."
Perhaps a worthy gesture, but it seems a little like penalizing sharks for scavenging the oceans.
I am dumbfounded by the lack of media attention to the heavy handed CMS demand for "patient satisfaction" at ALL costs. Hospital administrators and employed providers risked losing CMS funds if every patient whim wasn't satisfied. Emergency physicians and others were notable for handing out "goody bags" to ensure good scores ("Why Rating Your Doctor Is Bad For Your Health" - Forbes 1/2/13).
How about looking at that?
4
Full marks to the museums for finally refusing "donations" from the family, albeit well after news reports chronicled the crisis and the beneficiaries from it.
But what about Yale? They were quick to remove the Calhoun name after protests but the Sackler name remains. So high moral standards as long as economics are not at play?
3
I support this decision as a rebuke— but what will happen to the money designated for philanthropy supporting these museums? It’s dirty money but arts funding and programs are being cut left and right, and the federal government keeps proposing to eliminate the NEA. I hope the money that would have gone to the museums goes to care for and help the people whose lives have been ruined by this drug. And I dread and fear every loss of funding for arts organizations.
8
Condolences to the many Families and Individuals who have lost loved ones .
13
As an artist and custom designer/picture frame manufacturer in the high end art market in NYC from 1973 until today I can say that it is without doubt that ART = MONEY at the level this article discusses.
I've not followed the accusations concerning lying or illegal actions taken by individual Sackler family members, but simply dealing with the relationship of a family or a company that is directly responsible for great harm to the public by the product it produces, the scope goes far beyond Oxycontin and the Pharmaceutical Industry.
The most obvious industry of equal or greater weight is oil and gas.
Museums and artists rely on such Corporate funds, and galleries rely on wealthy collectors within those industries.
I have great love and respect for the role fine art plays in the lives of millions across the planet, and the overwhelming percentage of living artists do not make a living from it. They have very little direct connection to money from the world I described above.
Where does one draw the line? Perhaps the public discussion of funding by planet and people damaging industries can begin now.
Better yet, those industries might start making money by not contributing to the death of our planet and human life.
4
My how the mighty have fallen! They have good but dangerous drugs. They did not have to push them so hard to make more money. Why didn't the medical establishment stop this by giving their physicians better training? Why did the public seek out these meds as a treatment for their pain in some cases selling diverted drugs to make money?
All three layers, the manufacturer, the physicians and the public are to blame.
5
My father and mother owned a small candy store that produced very good chocolates.
Were they culpable in not warning their customers of the dangers of improper use of these chocolates?
5
@A. Stanton That depends. Did anyone die eating them? Were families ruined because a family member spent all of their money on the chocolates? Did people lose jobs and end up in jail because they ate too many of the chocolates?
8
It seems to me that preventing people from harming themselves is a shared duty with all of us taking primary responsibility for protecting ourselves, followed by the government in the person of the Food and Drug Administration, prescribing physicians and the manufacturers. As a practical matter, it is difficult to constrain businesses from boosting products they have an intense interest in selling. Buyers must always be aware.
By the way, those were very good chocolates, and it is not impossible that autopsies would have revealed chocolate-covered-cherries among the stomach contents of some of my parent's customers.
2
All, except the hospitals, should decline the Sackler's philanthropy. Use their donations for pain management and addiction outreach and treatment.
The Sacklers should be deprived of their tax break and ego boost for philanthropy at museums and concert halls, regardless of whether or not they emblazon the Sackler name at the entrance.
Community service for addiction is all they should be doing for the rest of their days.
2
I come from a country, France, where American Puritanism is too often unfairly mocked. But I fail to see the wisdom in refusing money to enhance museums, institutions that governments tend to underfund all over the world. Oh, morality, you say, as you sanctimoniously write on an island stolen from its original owners and thrive in a country built in a significant part on slavery ... I don’t think the Sackler name should be attached to museums ... but, oh wait, none of those self righteous institutions have any plans to change that situation, simply to lose financial contributions that no one would be aware of. Common sense is indeed a virtue that is not commonly shared.
15
Although I’m not completely sure if I understand your last sentence. That it’s fine for the institutions to take gifts as long as the money givers don’t have bad publicity? The point is that in the U.S. in particular, the rich buy their way into social status by being „philanthropists“. The more visible and established the institution, the better. Denying them that, is the point. Doesn’t have anything to do with puritanism.
6
@Claude Vidal They are refusing the money because of the public outcry, staged protests, and constant disruptions causes at the actual museums. It's those who "visit" the museums, and are causing the scenes, that don't want the Sackler money accepted. It's not necessarily the museums--who are simply bowing to public pressure.
5
What about HOSPITALS like Greenwich Hospital and the Yale New Haven Health System that are happy to take funding from death drug profits and then treat the overdoses and try to educate the public about addiction.
The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Investigate THAT NY Times
12
These drug pushers need to go to jail for what they have done.
13
Yet again another example of vacuous moral principles on display as if money was the only arbiter of virtue.
Whether the White House or Wall Street it seems human behaviour has reduced itself to the market place of greed and avarice.
This mind you when the wealthy promotes their behaviour as divine, respectable and above reproach and my all time favourite.... blameless!
7
They should give their money to hospitals—with their name nowhere in sight.
4
@Jo
My best fantasy to render justice: strip the Sackler fortune & apply it to treating its victims. Build rehab clinics all around. Then put the whole family to doing community service in the Kentucky hills. Except for the C.E.O who decided to push this scourge on the people -that guy needs to wear orange the rest of his life.
2
Thank you to the Sackler family for your past largesse. But your blood money is no longer wanted.
3
They're not generous philanthropists - they're just offsetting their tax bills on pet projects and vainglorious self-congratulation. So, NYT should stop characterizing their actions as virtues and generosity.
The lost tax payments are desperately needed to cure the unforgivable harms these death merchants have unleashed on our society.
41
It should be admitted that it is very difficult to amass a major fortune without exploiting other people in some way. That is an inherent part of capitalism that generally gets whitewashed in the celebration of people with money. People with money are celebrated with the hope that some of it will fall out of their pockets into the waiting hands of others, such as the cultural institutions and non-profits who rely on the rich for donations. Imagine if, instead, wealth was more evenly distributed, and people who wanted to enjoy cultural offerings could just pay representative ticket prices for them. Or imagine if, the social externalities were valued to the extend that governments funded them more.
24
@katweetie I agree with you completely "Difficult ot amass a major fortune without exploiting other people in some way"
@katweetie
The pharmaceutical industry in general makes plenty of profit. If we had a decent regulatory system which called out the often bogus clinical trial efficacy, and required real post market trials, there would be less innocent victims in the first place.
1
These institutions are missing a great opportunity. The punishment is that the Sacklers get to keep their money? They should pressure them into donating those funds to help alleviate the opioid crisis.
7
Perhaps the real issue ia taxation of capital gains, which is what allows the already rich to become much richer. if all income were taxed as ordinary income -- leveling the trratment of taxpayers -- then there would be less money for people like the Sacklers to spread around and more money for expenditures determined by the will of the people, expressed through government.
14
The family says “Our hearts go out to those affected by drug abuse or addiction”.
Why not add your money as well?
That would probably make a difference on how people see the Sacklers.
Stop glorify your name with a wing or an institute and start helping those who are addicted to what made you the billions you have. And have become addicted because of the way you marketed the drug to make those billions.
8
I believe it was the legendary ad man, Bill Bernbach (of Doyle, Dane & Bernbach) who, after resigning all of his agency's tobacco clients, said, 'A principle isn't a principle until it costs you money.'
17
The Sacklers get the profit from Purdue Phama but the billions in fines and litigation costs are borne by the company.
And then when the Sacklers give away the money, they get a tax deduction.
What a country.
15
@Cousy
You clearly don't understand business. Profits are reduced by the fines and litigation, so the Sacklers ARE affected.
2
Focusing nearly all the blame for the opioid crisis on Purdue, Oxycontin and the Sacklers is myopic and disingenuous to the point of hysteria.
The vast majority of people prescribed opiates for pain never got Oxycontin, they got some other, lower dose narcotic, a generic acetaminophen/oxycodone formulation (ie, Percocet) or a generic acetaminophen/hydrocodone formulation (ie, Vicodin). I had hand surgery involving the amputation of half a finger, reconstruction and pins in two others and I never saw anything stronger than Percocet at its lowest dosing.
The history of opiates has always been one where a new formulation is discovered and initially hyped as less addictive. Bayer trumpeted Heroin as less addictive than morphine 100 years ago, and I'm reasonably sure that many new formulations since then have been suggested as such until they were shown to be as addictive.
I think it's laughably disingenuous for the medical community to stand around and say "but they told us it wasn't addictive" -- what medical schools did they go to and what kind of experience do they have to think that a new opiate isn't going to at least have the potential for addiction? The medical community's complete escape for culpability on this is staggering.
Look, I don't trust the rich, Purdue stretched the truth and the Sacklers got rich in the process but making them the scapegoats ignores so much else (including the DEA crackdowns that fueled the rise of illicit fentanyl) that it's ridiculous.
19
@Mobocracy
Excellent post! As the lawsuits unravel much material will be available to legal scholars and social scientists to show the systemic nature of this crisis and its roots in the corrupted values of a waning empire. This business illustrates how poorly America governs herself lately.
1
I never quite understood why wealthy donors need to have their names so prominently associated with their charitable contributions. But it's clear to me now. They know that their wealth has been gained through the misery of countless others and they want to cleanse themselves of that guilt by laundering their despicable reputations. Charitable gifts aside, their disdain for the common folk is their true legacy.
We should never forget the words of a so-called philanthropist who names "graces" many buildings in New York City: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”
13
Thank you Nan Goldin. Thank you.
5
I don't think the word 'philanthropic' should ever be applied to a family that pushed millions into addiction that leads to tens of thousands of deaths each year.
16
Perdue should be forced to liquidate and the proceeds used to fund opioid drug treatment programs. The Sackler family should face criminal charges.
7
The Sacklers haven’t been convicted in a court of law, but I think these museums are making the correct moral decision. I hope Harvard and Yale and MIT and other organizations that take $$$ from Sackler and Koch will follow suit.
5
@Harry Mattison These institutions certainly have funds enough through their endowments and government subsidies as well as their voluntary tax status, to forgo a tax deductible contribution from the Sacklers.
1
Good. It's unconscionable for cultural institutions to take money from drug dealers and to prominently, uncritically, name their spaces after drug dealers.
4
Stop accepting Koch money, too, please!
The Kochs work actively against universal health care, then have the gall to give money to organizations who showcase artists, who often are the type of people who need support. Last time I went to the ballet and sat in an auditorium named after David Koch, I couldn’t help thinking, yeah it’s all good until you break your leg, ballerina, and can’t dance anymore.
24
The families whose loved ones overdosed and died are the ones who deserve the money.
This is good, but people like that have no conscience so you can’t make them feel bad. Unless one of them goes to jail.
4
The Sacklers, it should be noted, donate millions to lower their tax burden. Like all other super rich do. They take advantage of their customers, then act like community heroes when they donate. There is a grocery store chain in my community. They overcharge for their groceries and now have their names all over the community, sponsoring all sorts of things, even the 4th of July fireworks. Lets not forget the fact that they are using their customers money to do all this. The profit that generates philanthropy comes from the customer. So how about the wing of a museum be named " The Victims of the Sackler Family's Oxycontin Dealing" wing of the Guggenheim. That is a more accurate description of where the money actually came from.
32
@Walking Man
Or how about a sculpture garden for contemplation dedicated to the innocent victims of pharmaceutical crimes?
2
This article is NOT about the opiate crisis. That is another issue. What this article is about a family who was very involved with the day to day operations with the selling and marketing of a drug. This family was more than stockholders, they became paert and parcel of the managment of said company. They became executives. They directed operations. This article is about should a cultural institution take and accept money from a family that is complicit in the running of a company that has damaged people? I believe no amount of supplication should allowed. They are guilty and money should not be accepted. Their company should be ripped apart like I G Farben. If it survives the coming calvacade of lawsuits.
3
Why no mention of the Freer\Sackler Wing of the Smithsonian? What will be its fate?
2
A few thoughts:
1. It has been known for centuries that opioid pain remedies are addictive.
2. Sustained-release products have helped hundreds of thousands of cancer and hospice patients since these products have been available starting in the 1990's.
3. William Osler referred to opioids as "God's own medicine" in the help of the seriously afflicted.
4. Drug companies marketing to make a profit happens every day, just watch TV.
5. It sounds like the museums are trying to be politically correct on this one.
6. Better public policy is needed, but the current somewhat ill-advised attempts are throwing the baby out with the bath water. FDA and state legislatures need to up their game. I say this at the beginning of the late-2020's cannabinoid "crisis".
7. If Sackler's want to donate to my hospital, I am listening.
8
"Our hearts go out to those affected by drug abuse or addiction.” If that is indeed true perhaps the Sackler Trust should divert the enormous funds at its disposal derived from what the Chinese in another time described, in a letter to Queen Victoria as "this malefic herb," and put that money into drug rehabilitation programs (such as the excellent work being done in Rhode Island) and research into solutions to this crisis. The Sacklers perhaps could forgo a few glamourous opening event galas for a visit to the unfashionable states of Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi - epicenters of the opioid crisis where tens of thousands have died from overdoses over the last decade. In Illinois just in 2016 over 2000 have died. Cap that off passing on an art installation and instead tour some homeless encampments to get a better look at where their money is coming from.
It may not make for a lovely evening or provide the evident thrill of putting your name on buildings but it is certainly a better path to address what is shaping up as a shameful legacy.Mandating prescriber education
Implement opioid prescribing guidelines
Integrating prescription drug monitoring programs into clinical settings
Improving data collection and sharing
Treat opioid overdose
Increasing availability of opioid use disorder treatment
7
The earliest comment all seem to place primary blame on the wrong parties. The pharmaceutical companies work very hard to get doctors to overprescribe or mis-prescribe these pain killers. The misinformation and the incentives are insidious. Doctors who wish to lead in their fields face enormous pressure. So no it is not the doctors, nor is it the patients, nor is it the Sacklers, who should receive the primary blame. This action is misguided. These drugs have a useful purpose. Blame the profit motive of big pharma.
3
@Aaron - The Sacklers = Big Pharma.
1
Thanks to these protesters for highlighting these problems. The wider problem I think is that business in general is honestly conducted quite unethically in many industries. Lives are not lost in most cases, at least not in the short term, but really I’ve found that many of my dealings, perhaps, 70 to 80 percent have to have involved practices I found to be questionable and downright cheating. I came to the conclusion a few years ago that cheating seemed to be the bedrock of American culture seemingly. I first noticed it when I got my first car, and then the insurance, the financing etc etc. it was like I was surrounded by cheats everywhere. Everywhere, car sales, banks, lawyers, even doctors as in this case. The culture of cheating I think is quite widespread, it’s like there’s really a huge moral and cultural problem in this culture. I almost can’t think of anything done that doesn’t involve cheating and some questionable ethics. These drugs are the extreme example, but they’re the product of the same animal. I guess we draw the line at death?! Look at the food, preservatives, the sugar etc etc. so, in a way it’s kind of hypocritical to complain against the sackler family, but I guess the other cheats are not killing people at least as directly. I know somebody who’s lost their life to these drugs, so I support these moves, at the same time I also recognize that really we are sort of swinging in a cesspool of a tainted money culture with all sorts of people being hurt.
7
The Sackler Family have enriched themselves at our nations expense. They say "behind every great fortune there is a great crime" and the crimes committed by David Sackler, Richard Sackler and Purdue Pharma constitute the greatest corporate crime in history. Hundreds of thousands have already died, entire communities ravaged, our nation's productivity and life expectancy now diminished. This family's "philanthropy" was fully funded with blood money. Those who manufactured this epidemic, including the Sackler Family in toto, should be disgorged and every cent should go to recovery and restitution of the victims.
13
The despicable corporate greed of Perdue Pharma has enabled the Sackler family to hold themselves out to be generous benefactors of the arts instead of the drug pushers that they are. Their avarice and criminal conduct has resulted in one of the deadliest health scourges to ever grip this country. Instead of donating to museums they should be building treatment centers and developing medication to help those suffering and addicted to opioids. They should be behind bars.
3
The Sacklers give money to “upper class institutions” like museums, colleges and performance places. Makes them feel good, and gets them recognition. People like the Koch brothers, while their companies destroy the environment and-their influence in extreme right-wing policy is destroying our republic, also give to high end institutions. Think PBS and Lincoln Center. But there are also billionaires whose large foundations or their support do good work in the world. And their names are not on buildings. The Gates family gives educational opportunities and disease eradication in third world countries. Robert Redford has been the spokes person for NRDC whose work is to defend the environment around the world. There is a difference.
26
Well if the Sacklers just keep their opiate money rather than spending or donating it, maybe they will feel comfortable enough to sell helpful drugs at normal prices rather than the hyper-inflated prices on the market currently.
2
I hope that, when I'm suffering intractable pain from end stage cancer, that Oxycontin will be available.
13
It's so comforting to have an easy villain to blame for what essentially is peoples' own personal choices.
Of course, people who abuse OxyContin don't just pop the pills into their mouths, but instead grind it up and snort it, knowing full well what they are doing. But yet, they are victims of an evil empire of the Sacklers?
They promoted an extremely useful and valuable medicine--one which I, for example, needed after open heart surgery, and one which many people need for pain.
My open heart surgery was not needed because of lifestyle issues (weight, absence of exercise) but instead was because of a congenital defect that would have resulted in my death. The risks of surgery included a 1.5% chance of dying during it.
That 1.5% is about the percentage of people who abuse OxyContin. They want to have a high from it, so be it. But don't make open heart surgery less available to me and others who need it because 1.5% of people do poorly because of it.
I'll go into any wing of any museum that the Sacklers supported.
14
Physician here to point out a multitude of falsehoods. The fact of the matter is that sustained release opioids are ineffective in the treatment of chronic pain, are highly addictive, often abused and easily diverted.
6
Perhaps they should have exercised morality before they took the money. If they did not then they are same same as the donors: get the money and ask questions later.
2
I've had several surgeries over the years and was prescribed OnyContin after each . . . and thank God for it. I don't like the side effects of the drug, never finished all the pills I was given and still have a bunch in my medicine cabinet. Today I usually take an OxyContin pill on occasions when I know I'm going to spend a lot of time on my feet as it makes the pain of standing tolerable and so the event more pleasant. I do have higher pain levels (and the other unpleasant side effects) the next day or two, so there is a tradeoff. The unpleasant (and well known) side effects of OxyContin discourage its use on a regular basis. In summary I am inclined to conclude that those who become addicted have deliberately abused the drug beyond its intended purpose; in fact, I think this potential for abuse is so well known that it is hard to have sympathy for those who knowingly choose to do so.
7
@THOMAS WILLIAMS
Purdue lied from the get-go to doctors about OxyContin’s addictiveness.
1
@THOMAS WILLIAMS
Your experience is purely anecdotal. Yours is not the story of people with a genetic predisposition to addiction.
2
You make the common mistake of assuming that others experience the drug the same way you do. Plenty of people don't experience side effects, particularly at first when the high they experience is benign. Until it isn't, and for many folks that's too late. We should all have immense compassion for those caught up in this terrible trap. No one deliberately and knowingly chooses to ruin their life with an intractable addiction. Be grateful you can safely use this drug to manage your pain; understand not everyone is so lucky.
3
I think, they have picked the wrong fight. I don’t think ANY of “the Sacklers” EVER told a doctor how, to whom, for how long and in which amount to prescribe opioids. Doctors learn their own pharmacology in medical school, and “the Sacklers” don’t write the pharmacology textbooks nor do they teach.
This opioid issue is decades old, and it depends on the responsible (or less responsible) prescription indications and habits of DOCTORS!! It has been used and abused for a long time. Not “the Sackler’s” fault.
And the damage to the budgets of highly ranked museums and similars is soon going to become obvious, with deterioration, lack of maintenance, loss of employments and other consequences of 40 percent drops in their incomes!!
7
You are very very ill informed. As a prescriber, I can attest to older family physician colleagues who were presented clearly crafted deceptive marketing and sham science. Watch the 60Min expose. Museums will do just fine without the Sackler money, clearly gifted to provide the veneer of respectability.
42
I am a physician and would like to point out falsehoods in this post.
The Sacklers engaged in a campaign of misinformation followed up with extremely aggressive marketing which included direct cash incentives to their pharma reps for each prescription written. When it became apparent that Oxycontin was being massively diverted leading to an addiction scourge and people were dying by the thousands, the Sacklers
made an "end run" around the regulations and started to directly incentivize pharmacy benefit managers and distributors. They did this even after Art Van Zee published on the crisis and the Attornies General down in Kentucky and West Virginia informed them of the deaths and of the pill mills in their states and begged them to stop flooding their communities with this drug. Yet, the band played on. Nobody cared when it was just Appalachia. The chickens came home to roost and eventually the problem could no longer be ignored.
20
Anyone who denies Purdue Pharma’s complicity in the opioid crisis needs to read the eye opening book “Dopesick” by Beth Macy. Thoroughly documents the extraordinary and ruthless marketing of OxyContin and how rising demand and pill prices have driven many to heroin. I know. I lost my 24 year old grad school bound son to this scourge.
6
This article inspires memories from my past. In the late 1960's, my dad was burned in effigy by students of the art school that he built with the help of private benefactors for the Dayton Art Institute for refusing to accept corporate funding with strings attached. Could the tides of corporate malfeasance finally be turning?
2
I’d enjoy hearing a bit more about your father’s story. I lived for many years about four blocks from the Dayton Art institute, and enjoyed many events there. I may be returning in a couple of years.
2
@Joe Williams Thank you for your comment. I don't have much recollection of the events surrounding dad's experience at the time. I was away at school a lot at the time and missed most of it. I do distinctly remember how troubled he was by it all. It was a very difficult decision for him. He and mom ran museums together and spent countless evening hours debating, examining, hashing over issues of public service. They faced many moral and ethical dilemmas in their service to the public and the community. They were liberal in the traditionally conservative sense. Growing up with them was quite an experience. It is gratifying to hear that you feel that you benefited from some of their efforts. Thank you for writing me.
I am hoping that the rejected monies the Sackler family members are not spending in gifts to medical institutions like Tufts University will be given directly to families that have been effected by the epidemic. Think of the number of grandparents who are now raising the children of their deceased parents unexpectedly and under financial duress. That is a demographic that is deserving of settlement money, not the rehab industry that is pillaging, particularly in rehab-heavy places like Florida and California.
Best in the pursuit of the myriad of lawsuits nationwide, especially the talented team of attorneys in Mass. Let's hope that the settlement dollars go directly to those whose lives have been profoundly changed by the marketing schemes of Purdue. Last, let's hope that there is not a bankruptcy filed before families get any potential settlement dollars.
6
Very surprising that there is no mention of the Smithsonian's Arthur Sackler Gallery here in DC among the many institutions noted in the article. Hopefully the name will not discourage tourists to visit this beautiful and fascinating museum located on the National Mall.
1
As a judge I have seen first hand the effects these opiates have upon people and their families. Yes there and many who use these drugs responsibly and derive great benefits from them but there are also many whose lives are destroyed by them.
Perdue Pharma did not simply invent OxyContin it used its sales force to lie to the public and physicians about the dangers of getting hooked on them. It relentlessly pushed this drug, even as it was being warned that abuse of it was growing. They encouraged their sales force to ignore the fact that some doctors were running pill factories, literally selling thousands of pills. This family valued profits over lives. The money they donate is tainted by the tears of the many families of those who have died and those who’s lives have been destroyed.
42
@Matt Parker
Thank you. Your position as a judge gives you the clearest view of the devastation this has caused.
1
There is a disconnect somewhere. This is a drug that has valid use, but clearly has a horrific abuse track record, even in real time where over 100 people a day die from. How many people die from tobacco smoking, doesn't even have a benefit, or now we are unleashing Marijuana for casual use everywhere.... The false pretense of Juul saving the tobacco smokers(now we have more teen users then actual cigarette smokers?), God knows what train wreck we are headed into with health reports on these 20 years from now.
I think we have bad Doctors that participate in enabling distribution of this prescription beyond intended use, followed by a lack of a prescription system that would catch these patterns. Let's not forget that huge chunk of this drug is now acquired from Chinese and South of the border sources that totally circumvent any legal system and process that attempts to manage.
It seems foolish to treat the Sacklers( of which I know little to nothing about ) in this fashion..... Can't connect the dots.... Other then the product/drug started with them with a valid use.
9
@Cromwell Check the 2007 lawsuit against Purdue in which wrongdoing was admitted in marketing lies and the presentations young sales reps. gave to physicians indicating NO potential for addiction. Draw parallels with tobacco suit as well as those upcoming for sugar industry lies relative to diabetes. Se do actually take profit over people in the US of A.
16
Purdue Pharma ignored real information to aggressively market a highly addictive drug improperly. Yes, it has uses and now oxy is coming from other places and the fortune is based on lies and deception.
6
Pablo Escobar was also known for his philanthropy in Colombia. It’s an old tactic and the Sacklers are no different.
But since they’re rich, well-connected American businessmen, we don’t refer to them as a cartel.
59
This is all a good start.
Now can we focus on David and Charles Koch and their donations? Please read Democracy in Chains. It will open your eyes to the damage they have been doing to this country.
104
This opiate hysteria needs to stop. Many of us take opiates as prescribed and responsibly after years of heavy physical labor and our bodies have simply worn out. We did the work that few of these people have ever known or ever will.
15
This has not even *begun* to rise to the level of “hysteria.” These people, their product, and the manufacturing, marketing, and sales practices they have employed have devastated large swaths of this country. None of this is an indictment of your responsibly prescribed pain medication. It is an indictment of a massive American corporation that made the conscious decision to transform itself into an organized crime syndicate for the sole purpose of jacking up its profits. I haven’t seen nearly enough reporting on this crisis and its perpetrators. I think we need a lot more.
54
Good for you! 80,000 people a year die from this drug!
4
I'm not sure- just as we refuse to blame gun manufacturers for the repeated atrocities we witness almost daily ("guns don't kill people, people do")- don't prescribers and pharmacies merit some investigation? And what about the "patients"? In this day and age, everyone is aware of the risks- at some point, the individual has to bear some responsibility for his/her actions. Should this medication be taken off the market? Or is there a reasonable way to prescribe it without making it available for abuse?
8
There is a reasonable way to prescribe these drugs, and the Sacklers and their corporation made the conscious decision that that reasonable approach just did not deliver enough profit. They therefore turned their corporation into an organized crime syndicate, manufactured millions more of these pills than any nation could ever need, incented doctors to over-prescribe, and continued pumping thousands and thousands of pills into vulnerable parts of the country for years, leading to massive economic and social decay. By all means, prosecute the prescribers, the pharmacies, and pain clinics, too, but the root of all this evil is this family and their massive, over-subsidized, under-taxed corporation.
34
I'm fairly sure this move (and the same by the Tate Gallery in London) is being driven by legal advice. These institutions are refusing the donations for fear of having to return the funds in the future - not from any sense of moral or ethical outrage.
55
Dare we hope for a 21st century disinvestment campaign with the same good, though painful results, as the Disinvest South Africa movement in the last century?
As a related publicity push, the media would do well to post and circulate some of the truly obscene (word carefully chosen) profit levels that conscienceless investment can bring in. Some of the ratios are simpler to understand - over and over, we could teach the 1000s of % and more upcharges on the actual cost of creating, distributing and monitoring uses of drugs. There would, indeed, be a major impact on economic activity were the expectation of profits to be pushed down to good-but-not-obscene levels. That's likely going to come anyway as world populations are pushed further into serfdom. If there are no real middle classes, who will buy the "stuff." Luxury market can support a lot but not indefinitely.
7
What is being ignored is the fact that many severely sick people benefited by this drug. A family member has and didn’t abuse it
Doctors were supposed to limit the length of time to prescribe the drug right? And doctors can only prescribe a certain dosage for limited time? I read these provisions long ago
I’m in good health. Never used it. But I know people who were helped enormously by this drug
I believe there should be a clear understanding of the role the Sacklers family played along with who is behind this attack
Many pharma companies release drugs that are harmful with caveats as there are patients who benefit and addressed the need not to do harm but to help
31
@Rose There is a reason they are such philanthropists. That reason is they are swimming in money. There weren't just selling a pain killer, the were pushing it hard. For every person that was helped there is a string of people that were harmed. Not a good record and could have been accomplished without the greed. They knew what it was and they knew what they were doing. Wake up. This was nothing more than a drug dealing operation. If it had only helped people and had not harmed so many, we would not be having this conversation.
88
@Rose
Please read more about Purdue Pharma before you make comments like this.
Purdue (wholly owned by the Sacklers) didn’t merely invent OxyContin, it relentlessly pushed untrained doctors in rural areas to prescribe it at ever increasing doses, and ignored all evidence that the damage was mounting.
Addiction was Purdue’s business model, which is why they continue to lose class action litigation.
172
This donation disconnect is a simplistic..... Feel good..... cop out that does nothing for the real issue.
This drug has a huge benefit that we tend to forget about. It's strange that the manufacturer of a valid drug.... Which can't and does not sell directly to anyone... Needs a distribution channel enabled by a physician with a prescription.... To me that seems like should be a big focus of how access is given thereby enabling mass abuse. The larger issue now unfortunately is that this drug comes from sources like China and South of the border entering the black market directly...... The most dangerous and uncontrolled source. This is a very complex situation, with a horrific result, over 100 people die from everyday.
4
Bravo, P.A.I.N. for calling the world’s attention to this. Our museums should not be shrines to celebrate the blood money this family is rolling in. The Sackler family name should not be associated with the worlds greatest art, but instead the 1 in 96 Americans who will die of an overdose. As a parent of an addict I know a lot on the science. OxyContin is so highly addictive a person who has not taken any for years will spend the rest of their life fighting off daily sometimes completely uncontrollable cravings that try to overpower one’s complete sense of reasoning. It is a never-ending uphill battle. Perdue Pharmacy knew all along they had created one of the worlds most highly addictive substances, one that changes the chemistry of a persons brain. They knew, and hid that evidence, instead spending millions and millions to promote and reward doctors for over-prescribing. They continued despite mounting evidence of an epidemic. So when we visit these museums and see the name Sackler, let’s not think about the art. Let’s think about all the mothers fathers sons daughters sisters and brothers forever lost that this family has profited from. It’s about time these institutions are finally starting to wake up!
118
There are several questionable aspects to this at first apparently laudable effort.
1. The usual approach to going after an injurious institution is to hit it in its income stream, eg. by boycotts and significant fines.
Here, the demand is for the Sackler firms to stop returning part of their income to the public. Although much of philanthropy is offset by forgiven taxes, still there is typically a residue of net transfer of wealth to the public.
Even if there weren't , "hitting them in the philanthropy" isn't much of a protest slogan.
2. I suspect that a significant fraction of the great fortunes that underlie philanthropy have nauseating dirty little stories attached to them. The focus on one of them casts the others into darkness.
3. Indeed, there is an element of the inception of a show trial here. That is, the likelihood of overkill for one malefactor, to the neglect of a general survey of and dealing with the problem.
A better approach would be to start an investigation of the whole major benefactor industry, while keeping Sackler on the hook.
44
@alyosha
Your point number 2 -- behind every great fortune lies a great crime.
5
@Mobocracy Yes, Balzac said that more than 150 years ago. It isn't true in every case but it is true in many
3
@
How about starting an investigation of the whole pharmaceutical industry, as this is their M.O.
3