OxyContin maker’s settlement plan divides victims of opioid crisis. Now it’s up to the Supreme Court

The settlement proposal by the manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, has stirred both hope and controversy in the ongoing battle against the opioid crisis. While the agreement, which involves Purdue Pharma relinquishing ownership and contributing up to $6 billion to address the crisis, could potentially aid in combating the overdose epidemic triggered by the painkiller, it has left some victims unsatisfied.

One of the key points of contention is the exemption of the wealthy Sackler family, who own the drug manufacturer, from civil lawsuits. In exchange for their financial contributions, the Sacklers could retain billions of dollars in profits from OxyContin sales while being shielded from legal action. The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliberate on December 4th to determine whether this aspect of the settlement, which is part of Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy resolution, complies with federal law.

The central legal issue revolves around whether bankruptcy protections can extend to individuals like the Sacklers, who have not personally declared bankruptcy. This question has resulted in conflicting rulings in lower courts and has broader implications for future product liability lawsuits settled through the bankruptcy system.

However, the settlement also presents a moral dilemma that has divided those who have suffered due to opioids. For instance, Ellen Isaacs, who lost her 33-year-old son, Ryan Wroblewski, to an opioid overdose, initially supported the settlement but has since reconsidered. She believes that money may not bring closure and fears that allowing this deal could set a precedent for others in the future.

On the other hand, Lynn Wencus, who also lost her 33-year-old son to an overdose, has come to support the settlement. She hopes that finalizing the agreement will help her move past the lingering presence of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, whom she holds responsible for the opioid crisis.

Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of OxyContin, a potent prescription painkiller, is widely regarded as a catalyst for the nationwide opioid epidemic. The company previously pleaded guilty to misbranding the drug in 2007 and paid substantial fines. Despite the majority of opioids being generic drugs, opioid-related overdose deaths have continued to rise, reaching 80,000 in recent years due to shifts toward heroin and more potent synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

Various parties, including drug companies, wholesalers, and pharmacies, have agreed to pay over $50 billion to settle lawsuits related to their marketing, sales, and monitoring practices that fueled the opioid crisis. The Purdue Pharma settlement is among the largest and includes provisions for direct compensation to victims from a $750 million fund, with expected payouts ranging from approximately $3,500 to $48,000.

While some view this settlement as a significant step in addressing the opioid crisis, others see it as a complex moral and legal issue. The Sackler family’s involvement and the protection they receive remain at the center of the debate, highlighting the intricate nature of resolving such a far-reaching public health crisis through legal means.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about OxyContin settlement

More about OxyContin settlement

• OxyContin maker’s settlement plan divides victims of opioid crisis
• Purdue Pharma
• Sackler family
• Supreme Court
• Opioid epidemic
• OxyContin