Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges Regarding OxyContin (2020)

    For the past few decades, The United States of America has been plagued with an opioid epidemic. Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, have been known to be greatly contributing to this epidemic, if not causing it entirely. Recently, the company has been charged with several criminal charges, as well as made to pay billions of dollars in fines. As a part of the settlement that was reached, the Sackler family, who has owned the company since the 1950’s, will lose ownership of Purdue Pharma, as it is turned into a public benefit company. 

     All ethical theories would find several issues with the actions of Purdue Pharma. From an individualistic perspective, their actions were those of a typical business trying to maximize profit, however several violations of the law make their actions impermissible.  A utilitarian would also see several issues with this situation, as the biggest concern of utilitarianism is maximizing happiness for all. As will be outlined in this paper, not a single individual in this situation ended up with what one would consider to be happiness. From a Kantian perspective, several actions of Purdue Pharma are considered impermissible, particularly using people as a means to some end goal, as well as practicing manipulation of consumers. Finally, virtue theorist would find concern in the fact that almost all no virtuous traits were carried out by Purdue Pharma, but rather they practiced vices such as greed, dishonestly, and manipulation. 

    Although Purdue Pharma made several unethical mistakes in the marketing and distribution of OxyContin, there are things that can and should be done to fix this problem. By taking responsibility and showing that they have a desire to help those that they harmed, Purdue Pharma has the potential to improve their public image and regain the trust of Americans. 

Ethics Case Controversy 

 

Purdue Pharma's OxyContin, the meditation that has 
caused millions of deaths and led to the downfall
of the company. 

    Throughout the past couple of decades, the opioid crisis has become characteristic of the United States of America, and Purdue Pharma is being held responsible for creating it. The company has had to admit to “enabling the supply of drugs without legitimate medical purpose” (BBC), meaning that their only concern was selling their medication with no regard to whether it was done properly and safely or not. Recently, Purdue Pharma has been undergoing a federal investigation on the basis of lack of care involved in distributing OxyContin.  This has led to an $8.3 billion settlement to be reached. The settlement emphasizes that “for more than two decades, there has been a widespread problem of overprescribing, diverting, and abusing pain medication in America, while drug manufactures such as Purdue profited from this issue and failed to take responsibility or action” (Rowland). As part of this settlement, the Sackler Family, which has owned Purdue Pharma since the 1950’s, will not only lose ownership of their company, but will admit to “three felony counts for defrauding the federal government by misleading regulators about its efforts to restrict overprescribing of the drug and to violating anti-kickback laws by paying doctors to write more OxyContin prescriptions” (Williams).  A prime example of their wrongdoing was in 2012, when “members of the Sackler family demanded that company executives come up with a plan to generate greater revenue in response to slumping sales. A new marketing plan, called ‘Evolve to Excellence’ was created. This plan involved more intensified marketing of OxyContin to extreme, high-volume prescribers who were already writing ‘25 times as many OxyContin scripts’ as their peers.” (Rowland). While the company agreed to pay huge fines because of this as well as admit criminal liability, the family that owns the company, as well as executives within the company, claim that they "acted ethically and lawfully, and the upcoming release of company documents will prove that fact in detail” (Rowland). 

    This investigation has been ongoing for a substantial amount of time, however a settlement was just now reached due to the presidential election, but some are saying that it was far too rushed, and feel as if Purdue Pharma should have suffered more consequences for their actions. The Justice Department was pushed to settle a large number of outstanding cases involving major corporations, as “Administrations often seek to resolve significant cases as they near the possible end of their time in office, and with Election Day drawing near, the Trump administration has pushed to finalize a number of such matters this month” (Rowland). Massachusetts attorney Maura Healy stated that she believes that the Justice Department has failed, because “justice, in this case, requires exposing the truth and holding the perpetrators accountable, not rushing a settlement to beat an election” (Rowland). 

 

    The substantial amount of money that will be paid in this settlement will be used to redress past wrongdoings, as well as provide new resources for treatment and care of those impacted by OxyContin. Furthermore, Purdue Pharma will be turned into a Public Benefit Company, “meaning it will be governed by a trust that has to balance the trust’s interests against those of the American public and public health” (Balsamo). This comes as a relief to many, as the Sackler family has evidently caused an abundance of problems for the American public, and thus, they will no longer have control of their company. 

Timeline of Events 

 

Stakeholders

    There are countless stakeholders in this situation, including people who currently suffer or have previously suffered from addiction to OxyContin, the family and friends of people facing this addiction, the Sackler family, and the American population in general. People who have faced addiction to OxyContin largely have Purdue Pharma to blame, because if the medication was marketed and distributed properly, it’s likely that they would not have had a problem with it at all. Brooke Feldman, who is in recovery from opioid use disorder, stated that she “is glad to see Purdue admit wrongdoing. She said the company has acted for years as a ‘drug cartel’” (Balsamo). Many people who have faced addiction have lost a lot from this situation, including their jobs, relationships with family and friends, and some even losing their lives, which makes them one of the primary stakeholders in this situation. 

Protesters stage a "die-in" inside Harvard's
Arthur M. Sackler Museum to protest the Sackler's
involvement in the opioid crisis.

    Furthermore, families who are impacted by a member suffering abuse of the drug are also stakeholders, as many have lost someone they love due to the company’s wrongdoings. Ed Bisch, “who lost his 18-year-old son to an overdose nearly 20 years ago, said he wants to see people associated from Purdue prosecuted and was glad that the Sackler family wasn’t granted immunity” (Balsamo). Along with millions of others, Bisch blames the company and the family for the millions of deaths that have occurred, and has noted that “If it was sold for severe pain only from the beginning, none of this would have happened…but they got greedy” (Balsamo). 

    The Sackler family and other top executives are stakeholders because not only were they the decision makers in this case, but they also lost billions of dollars, as well as their company. Since they were the ones who chose to market their product aggressively, bribe medical professionals, and not take precautions to ensure the use of their product was safe and controlled, they ultimately made the decisions that made their company suffer. Because of that, and because they are also at a loss, they are considered stakeholders in this situation as well.

    Lastly, the American public are stakeholders in this situation as well. On top of having to be careful not to abuse OxyContin if they get prescribed it, Americans also have to watch people that they know and care about suffer from addiction. Many people, even if they are in severe pain, do not even want to get OxyContin prescribed to them because of how addictive it is. Since many have to live in fear, as well as watch many Americans suffer from OxyContin addiction, the general American public can be considered stakeholders in this situation as well. 

 

Individualism

    From an Individualistic perspective, there is wrongdoing involved with Purdue Pharma’s actions in the marketing and lack of responsibility in distributing OxyContin. Individualism, the theory created by Milton Friedman, emphasizes that “business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do so within the law” (Salazar 17). The aggressive marketing of OxyContin would not be seen as unethical from an Individualistic point of view, but rather beneficial to the company. The problem, however, is that Purdue Pharma used unlawful tactics in order to market their product. Purdue admitted to not only “violating federal anti-kickback laws by paying doctors to induce them to write more prescriptions, but also that it “impeded the Drug Enforcement Administration by falsely representing that it had maintained an effective program to avoid drug diversion and by reporting misleading information to the agency to boost the company’s manufacturing quotas” (Balsamo). Because they have violated several laws in order to make profit, this is not permissible under individualism. 

 

    Aside from the illegal aspect, the goal of their marketing was simply to maximize profit, which is the overall goal of Individualism. Since this theory is more so about the business and business owners rather than the consumers, there is nothing wrong with causing millions of addictions and deaths, according to Individualism. As long as the business is actively trying to maximize their profit, and doing so within the law, it is seen as permissible. 

 

    Although “Friedman held that it is the aim and the responsibility of businesses to maximize their

profits” (Salazar 18), Purdue Pharma was still in the wrong from an Individualistic point of view. Although consumers were undoubtedly harmed, that does not matter in and Individualistic sense, unless the law is broken. Since the marketing was not done within the law, however, this is not permissible under Individualism. 

Utilitarianism

    

    Utilitarianism emphasizes ‘maximizing the overall good’ or, in a slightly different version, of producing ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Acts that accomplish this aim are good; those that do not are bad” (Desjardins 29). This essentially means that the main goal is to maximize the happiness of everybody involved. 

    When Purdue Pharma was first beginning to sell OxyContin, their actions may have been seen as permissible under Utilitarianism. The Sackler family, as well as top executives in the company, were profiting off of selling this drug, which evidently causes happiness for them. Doctors were under the impression that the timed-release formula was meant to decrease the likelihood of addiction, so having a drug that reduced pain, while also having non-addictive properties, was seen as a great thing in the medical industry. Consumers, who had been dealing with severe pain before, were given a medication that worked well for reducing pain, which in turn made them happy. 

 

    Later on, however, almost everyone was hurt by this situation, meaning that it was shown to be unethical by Utilitarians. Consumers began facing addiction or even death due to OxyContin, meaning that family members were losing loved ones because of this drug. People who suffered from addiction were clearly not happy, and the risk of losing one’s life did not cause happiness either. Purdue Pharma was faced with incredibly large fines, as well as having to give up their business, meaning that he happiness from making profit did not last, and they ended up becoming unhappy as well. Since “business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action” (Salazar 17), and nobody remained happy in the long run, it becomes evident that the actions of Purdue Pharma were not permissible under Utilitarianism. Since almost everyone suffered in the long run and nobody came out of this situation with happiness, it can be seen that these actions are not beneficial to any of the stakeholders. This emphasizes that ultimately, the actions of Purdue Pharma were unethical by a Utilitarian point of view. 

 

Kantianism

    According the The Case Manual, the ethical rule of Kantianism is to “always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don’t lie, cheat, manipulate or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties” (Salazar 17). Furthermore, according to Kant, “…ethics requires us to treat all people as ends and never only as means.” (Desjardins 38).  Purdue Pharma undoubtedly violated this, as they were using consumers as a means to the end goal of profit. The company did not care that people were becoming addicted to this medication at astounding rates, leading to millions of deaths across America, but rather they used this to their advantage, enabling them to sell more drugs and in turn, make more profit. 

    Although this situation is seen as ethically wrong in both Utilitarianism and Kantianism, it is wrong for different reasons. One of the key differences in the ethical theories is that “Utilitarianism is concerned only with consequences of an action and Kantianism does not make decisions based on consequences, but rather on what Kant calls the ‘Good Will.’” (Salazar 21). This essentially means that just because an action can produce good results, the action cannot be done based on only the outcome. Having Good Will, in this case, means that “…people

have good intentions and use good reasoning to come to conclusions that will 

make their good intentions effective” (Salazar 21). In the case of Purdue Pharma, it becomes clear that their intentions were only good for themselves, and not the consumers. They knowingly harmed millions of people in order to increase revenue, which ultimately benefitted only the Sackler family and top executives at the company. 

 

    One of the most concerning violations of Kantianism is one of the most important aspects of the theory, which emphasizes that the “fundamental ethical duty is to treat people with respect, to treat them as equally capable of living an autonomous life” (Desjardins 38). By continuing to aggressively market a drug that was known to be extremely addictive, Purdue Pharma was taking away people’s autonomy. Causing people to become dependent on a drug is one of the most clear-cut ways to manipulate people, as well as take away their autonomy. Once consumers become addicted, they keep needing more, which means that Purdue Pharma was making more and more profit off of people’s suffering. Because of this, it is evident that this case is extremely impermissible under Kantianism. 

 

Virtue Theory

    Similarly to Individualism, Utilitarianism, and Kantianism, the actions of Purdue Pharma would be seen as unethical by a virtue theorist. Virtue Theory, rather than focusing on individual actions, focuses on the character of individuals. The main objective of this theory is to “act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits” (Salazar 17), and it is evident that Purdue Pharma did not do that. 

 

    According to The Case Manual, “A few vices that have been severely detrimental to otherwise savvy and innovative business people are greed, dishonesty, and selfishness” (Salazar 23), and Purdue Pharma has demonstrated all of these. The company showed greed when they went to extreme measures to have their product become more popular. By convincing doctors to prescribe OxyContin more frequently, as well as going so far as to violate the law in order to make more profit, they have shown that they care more about profit than the health and wellbeing of consumers. Furthermore, dishonestly in this situation is rampant. On top of “defrauding the federal government by misleading regulators about its efforts to restrict overprescribing of the drug” (Williams), they have also lied about the dangers of the drug and its addictive properties, putting millions of people at risk. In terms of selfishness, Purdue has put gaining profit above the health of their consumers. They have expressed a selfish need for even more revenue than they already have, and rather than attempting to resolve the problem that they caused, they contributed to it even more. 

 

    Virtue theory values “Character Traits that Promote Wellness or Flourishing of Individuals within a Society.” (Salazar 22), and it is clear that Purdue Pharma does not promote wellness, but rather neglects it in an attempt to maximize profit. Because they marketed their product so aggressively and promoted the over-prescription of the drug, they were not promoting the flourishing of individuals within society, but rather the downfall. Because of all of the vices they have shown, as well as lack of virtuous characteristics, it is evident that a virtue theorist would view the actions committed by Purdue Pharma to be completely unethical. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation 

            In my opinion, Purdue Pharma’s actions were completely unethical. Not only did they harm millions and millions of people for the sole purpose of making profit, but they also did nothing to stop the epidemic that they created, but rather contributed to it even more. They were well aware that people had become extremely addicted to OxyContin, however, they continued to aggressively market the product, as well as bribe doctors to prescribe it abundantly. By implementing things such as “intensified marketing of OxyContin to extreme, high-volume prescribers who were already writing ’25 times as many OxyContin scripts’ as their peers.” (Rowland), Purdue Pharma put the health and safety of consumers at risk for the sole purpose of increased profit. Furthermore, they broke the law to do these things, by “defrauding the federal government by misleading regulators about its efforts to restrict overprescribing of the drug and to violating anti-kickback laws by paying doctors to write more OxyContin prescriptions” (Williams). Because of this, it is clear that Purdue Pharma made several ethical mistakes, which shows an abundance of negligence within the company. Not putting consumers first, but rather putting their lives at risk, is not ethical, and therefore Purdue Pharma acted completely unethical in this situation. 

 

Company Action Plan 

    It is evident that Purdue Pharma’s actions harmed millions of Americans. Because of this, there are several steps that must be involved in order to correct their wrongdoing. 

    First and foremost, the family and executives within the company need to accept their wrongdoing and admit to creating and contributing to the opioid epidemic. The family claims that they “acted ethically and lawfully, and the upcoming release of company documents will prove that fact in detail” (Rowland). This is evidently not true, and one of the first priorities when it comes to getting forgiveness from the general public is to admit that they did something wrong. Acknowledging their mistakes is the least that they can begin with doing. By doing this, they will show the American public, as well as those who have faced consequences from OxyContin, that they acknowledge their mistake and know that it was wrong of them.  

     As of now, Purdue is set to transform into a Public Benefit Company. One of the main purposes of this is “to ensure funding is devoted to advanced treatment programs” (Rowland), but also to ensure that the Sackler family will lose control of their company. Because of this, it will be impossible for the Sackler family to change the way they market and distribute OxyContin, since they will no longer have any part in it.

    One of the most important and potentially helpful things that the Sackler family can do to is donate money to families and communities that have been heavily impacted by the opioid crisis.  This is already a part of the settlement, since members of the Sackler family have already expressed a desire to “direct substantial funding to communities in need, rather than to years of legal proceedings…members of the Sackler family have expressed ‘deep compassion for people who suffer from opioid addiction and abuse and hope the proposal will be implemented as swiftly as possible to help address their critical needs’”(Williams). Despite the fact that this is already outlined in the settlement, it could be very beneficial for the Sackler family to donate some of their own personal money. This would not only improve the company’s public image, but it would show Americans that the family truly does care about how many people they have harmed, and are willing to give up part of the profit that they fought so hard for in order to help. 

    If the company wants to be able to remain profitable or be able to increase their profits, they would need to improve their public image and make sure that they are staying within the law. The Sackler family, however, will no longer have the ability to profit from the sale of OxyContin, since they no longer own the company. The Public Benefit company, however, must ensure that they are doing better than the Sackler’s in terms of marketing, distribution, and not violating the trust of the federal government and the American people. 

     Some of the values that need to be prioritized are trust, compassion, customer well-being, and honesty. Trust needs to be prioritized because it is one of the most important aspects of running a business. After the controversy, many Americans do not trust Purdue Pharma, and therefore the new company that will remain manufacturing OxyContin will need to regain this trust. The new company, as well as the Sackler family, needs to show compassion.  It was one of the main things that has been lacking for decades, and ensuring that businesses care about the people that they are supplying to is important, and it helps build trust. After all of the company has done, they need to show compassion and prove to Americans that they have learned from their mistakes. Customer well-being is the most important of all of these values. Because they are pharmaceutical company, that should be their first priority, however it wasn’t while the Sackler family owned it. The new Public Benefit Company, as well as the Sackler family, even after losing their company, need to show that they do care about the well-being of their customers. If that does not happen, then the company will not be able to flourish, and the Sackler family will remain in bad view from the public. Lastly, honesty is important in any business, but pharmaceutical companies especially. Pharmaceuticals have the power to kill people, create addictions, and cause many adverse effects. Companies need to be honest with not only their customers, but the government as well. It needs to be apparent to customers that the company has the well-being of customers as the first priority, and will not practice dishonesty to deceive customers for the purpose of profit. 

 

     If the Sackler family follows these steps of publicly apologizing, donating money to families and communities that were impacted from OxyContin, and keeping their values aligned, the company has a chance of greatly improving their public image, and potentially gaining the trust of Americans back again. Although it will be hard for them to be completely forgiven, taking steps towards this goal is important. If the family and the company do nothing, then they will be seen as even worse than they already are. 

     It is apparent that Purdue Pharma has made mistakes in the marketing and distribution of their product, OxyContin, that are considered to be extremely unethical. Not only did the company break several laws and lie to the federal government, but they also knowingly contributed to the opioid epidemic that has been controlling America for decades. Many, if not all, of Purdue Pharma’s actions were done for the sole purpose of increasing profits to extremely high amounts, however, they prioritized this over the lives of consumers. When looking at the situation from an Individualistic approach, almost everything is permissible, except for the fact that they broke the law. The ethical theory essentially states that businesses can do whatever needs to be done in order to maximize profit, as long as it is within the law. Because of that, it is obvious that this is impermissible under Individualism. In the sense of Utilitarianism, it is obvious that not everybody is happy in this situation. Not only are there millions of Americans suffering from addiction to OxyContin, but also family members and members of the community are drastically affected from that as well. Furthermore, the Sackler family ended up losing their company and having to pay billions of fines, so they are evidently not happy either. When preparing an analysis from a Kantian perspective, it becomes apparent that this is also impermissible, Purdue Pharma used customers as a means for increasing profits, and harmed them in the process. Lastly, a virtue theorist would also disagree with these actions. They are not practicing virtues that make businesses and people flourish, but they are instead practicing vices such as greed and dishonestly that harm people. Despite the fact that Purdue Pharma made a huge mistake and harmed the American people, there are steps that they can take to make things right. By taking full responsibility for their actions, as well as showing that they regret what they did by making monetary donations to those who have been affected, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family has the ability to repair their public image, as well as potentially gain the forgiveness and trust of the American people. 

 

                                                                                                           Julianne Hess

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

Balsamo, Michael, and Geoff Mulvihill. “OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma to Plead to 3 Criminal Charges.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 21 Oct. 2020, apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-business-criminal-investigations-opioids-epidemics-5f0679ffee14577b1696a94b64abc9c2.

DesJardins, Joseph R. An Introduction to Business Ethics. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2014. 

Ofgang, Erik. “Purdue Pharma and OxyContin: A Timeline.” Connecticut Magazine, 24 Oct. 2019, www.connecticutmag.com/health-and-science/purdue-pharma-and-oxycontin-a-timeline/article_e140534a-f50f-11e9-96ab-8bb2725250e0.html.

“OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma to Plead Guilty to 3 Criminal Charges.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 21 Oct. 2020, www.cbsnews.com/news/oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-to-plead-guilty-3-criminal-charges-ap/.

Rowland, Christopher, and Meryl Kornfield. “Purdue Pharma Agrees to Plead Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges in Settlement over Opioid Crisis.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 22 Oct. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/10/21/purdue-pharma-charges/.

Salazar, Heather. The Case Manual . 

Sherman, Natalie. “Purdue Pharma to Plead Guilty in $8bn Opioid Settlement.” BBC News, BBC, 21 Oct. 2020, www.bbc.com/news/business-54636002. 

Williams, Pete. “OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Federal Criminal Charges.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 22 Oct. 2020, www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oxycontin-drugmaker-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-federal-criminal-charges-n1244155.

 

Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges Regarding OxyContin (2020)

Abstract

            Purdue Pharma is a pharmaceutical corporation known for the creation and production of one of the most used, and prescribed opioids, OxyContin.

Throughout the past few decades, the opioid crisis has been fueled by drugs such as OxyContin, Fentanyl, and Hydrocodone. Recently, Purdue Pharmaceuticals has been in the media for the multitude of lawsuits and court cases against them regarding their contribution to the opioid crisis, and their failure to inform medical professionals the effect that OxyContin could have on a consumer. Over the past few year there have been lawsuits in 49 of the 50 states, in Washington D.C, and other U.S territories against Purdue Pharma and their actions, and contributions to the opioid crisis.

This paper will take the actions from Purdue Pharma, and evaluate them using the ethical theories, Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Virtue Theory. According to Individualism, Purdue Pharma acted ethically because they acted within the law and made a profit for their company. When looking at Utilitarianism, Purdue Pharma did not act ethically because in the end, not everybody was happy with the outcome of the decisions of the company. Using Kantianism to evaluate Purdue Pharma, they acted unethically because it seemed as if they were using the customers as an end, not a mere means, just to make a profit. Lastly, according to Virtue Theory Purdue Pharma acted unethically because they were not honest or transparent in their actions.

Opioid Crisis Background

            In the early 1990’s, the Opioid Epidemic, otherwise known as the Opioid Crisis, began. Pharmaceutical Companies such as Purdue Pharmaceuticals, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals started to produce synthetic drugs for pain relief. Oxycodone (Purdue Pharmaceuticals), Hydrocodone (Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals), Tramadol (Amneal Pharmaceuticals), and Fentanyl, which was produced by Dr. Paul Janssen of Belgium, are the most prescribed and used opioids that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved (Medline Plus). Heroin is also a commonly used opioid, however it is not approved by the FDA, and is currently an illegal substance.

OxyContin, created by Purdue Pharma in 1996

Patients are prescribed opioids for pain after a surgery, or an injury. Originally pharmaceutical companies assured doctors that it would be challenging to become addicted or misuse opioids, however as they became more popular people started to develop tolerances, and addictions. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, it is shown that “roughly 21 to 29 percent of patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain misuse them.” Once it became apparent that opioids were harmful, and addictive, doctors started to have conventions, and large meetings talking about the dangers and effects that opioids have on the human body. It is estimated that approximately 4 to 6 percent of people who misuse prescription opioids transition to using heroin, and about 80% of people who use heroin first misused prescription opioids (National Institute on Drug Abuse).

Purdue Pharmaceuticals Background

            Purdue Pharmaceuticals was founded in 1892 by John Purdue Gray, and George Frederick Bingham. This company is based out of Stamford, CT. In 1952, Purdue Pharma was sold to Raymond and Mortimer Sackler who took the business to Yonkers, New York. Currently Purdue Pharmaceuticals is owned by the Sackler Family.

            In the 1990’s, Purdue Pharmaceuticals introduced OxyContin, which is one of the most used, and prescribed opioids. Purdue Pharma’s target market was aimed at not only cancer patients, but all patients with chronic pain. Between the years of 1996 and 2004, Purdue Pharmaceuticals held over 40 national pain-management conferences for medical professionals to show the dangers of opioids (Zee, 2009). When OxyContin originally hit the market, the risk of addiction was misrepresented, and overlooked.

Purdue Pharma Headquarters in Stamford, CT

The Case Controversy

            When OxyContin was first produced, the real risks that it had to a person’s psychological health had not been fully disclosed to medical professionals. The risks of dependence, and addiction were overlooked, and not completely disclosed to the public.

            Over the past few decades, since OxyContin has been released to the public, it has been one of the main contributors to the Opioid crisis, which has claimed over 450,000 lives from the years of 1999 to 2018 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The biggest problem that involved Purdue Pharmaceuticals, and the opioid crisis is that they did not warn or educate the medical providers about addiction or dependence once it first hit the market. Starting in 1996, and going until 2004, Purdue Pharma has held many conferences, and conventions expressing the risks and dangers of OxyContin.

            Purdue Pharmaceuticals was being sued in 49 states, Washington D.C., and various U.S. territories for a total of $2.15 trillion due to its role in the opioid crisis (Adams, 2020). In 2019, Purdue Pharmaceuticals filed for bankruptcy as part of a settlement with 24 states, and the District of Columbia (Hill, 2019). In 2019 Purdue Pharma reached a $270 million settlement in a lawsuit filed by Oklahoma, that claimed OxyContin contributed to thousands of deaths.

            Purdue Pharma plead guilty to federal criminal charges, including defrauding health agencies, and violating anti-kickback laws, for its role in igniting the opioid crisis, and agreed to pay $8 billion in settlements, and dissolve the company. Purdue Pharma as a corporation does not have $8 billion to pay the settlements so the company was said to dissolve, and the assets will be used to create a new public benefit company (Isidore, 2020). The Sackler family was also made to pay $225 million as a civil settlement, which is just a small portion of their $13 billion net worth. It is important to note that a large portion of their $13 billion net worth was generated from OxyContin sales (Hoffman and Benner, 2020).

Stakeholders

            The stakeholders in this controversy are the employees of Purdue Pharma, the Sackler Family, the medical doctors who prescribed OxyContin, the Board of Directors at Purdue Pharma, the sales team, and anybody who has a share in the company.

The Sackler Family, owners of Purdue Pharma

            For starters, the Board of Directors, the CEO, Craig Landau, and the Owners, the Sackler Family are all involved in this controversy. Everyone played a role in the company, meaning they are all involved in the marketing, and sales of OxyContin. The sales and marketing team for Purdue Pharma also is to blame because they were the ones pushing the sales, and producing the marketing for OxyContin, when they were not giving the public the correct information about the product. In addition to the marketing team, anybody who was hired by Purdue Pharma was affected, because they could lose their jobs. The doctors, hospitals, and medical professionals who were prescribing OxyContin were also marketing the drugs.

Individualism

            Milton Friedman, Nobel-Prize winning economist says, "it is the aim and responsibility of businesses to maximize their profits" (Salazar 17). Friedman also explains that a business should not attempt to be socially responsible, and should not spend money on resources, employees, and donations to other charities because in turn that is stealing from the owners of the company. Since Purdue Pharma did everything in their power to maximize profits, there would be no actions that would be deemed unethical, therefore being permissible under individualism.

            While Purdue Pharma did everything in their power to maximize the profits of the company and maximize the profits for the stakeholders, when included aggressive marketing tactics. Purdue Pharma "violated anti-kickback laws by paying doctors, through a speaking program, to induce them to write more prescriptions for the company's opioids and for using electronic health records software to influence the prescription of pain medication" (Balsamo). While it may be viewed that Purdue Pharma acted ethically according to the individualism theory, they acted outside of the law meaning Purdue Pharma's actions are not permissible using the theory of individualism.

In order for a company's actions to be viewed ethical under individualism they must being doing everything in their power to maximize profits for the company while staying within the law. While Purdue Pharma did everything they could to maximize profits, they went against laws when marketing, meaning their actions are not permissible under the individualism theory.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism theory explains that "businesses should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business action"(Salazar 19). When OxyContin first hit the market in the 1990's, Purdue Pharma's actions would have been viewed as permissible under the Utilitarianism theory. At that time, doctors were thrilled to have a drug that would reduce pain, while having a lower likelihood of addiction. Consumers were thrilled because there was finally a solution to their chronic and severe pain. Lastly, the Sackler Family, and executives of Purdue Pharma were happy because they were making a huge profit off the sales of OxyContin. After years of OxyContin being on the market, thousands of people were affected by the drug. Consumer started to become dependent and addicted to OxyContin, leading to thousands of deaths. People were becoming addicted, and losing their lives, ultimately not being happy. Doctors were seeing the effects that the opioid had on their patients, and were disappointed in the outcome. Lastly, Purdue Pharma was not satisfied because they had a multitude of lawsuits against them, ultimately having to pay millions in fines.

Essentially the main goal of Utilitarianism is the maximize happiness in everybody involved, and in this case, nobody remained happy in the end result, meaning that Purdue Pharma's actions were not permissible by a utilitarian view. Looking at the entire case from start to finish, looking at deaths, lawsuits, settlements, and addiction nobody ended up happy. 

Kantianism

            Kantianism is to "always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Don't lie, cheat, manipulate, or harm others to get your way. Rather, use informed and rational consent from all parties"(Salazar 20). In addition, Kantianism uses the formula of humanity, stating that everybody should be treated as an end, not a mere means. In the end, Purdue Pharma violated the formula of humanity when they used the consumers as a mere means to get a profit from their OxyContin sales. To Purdue Pharma it did not matter that people were becoming addicted, overdosing, or dying because they were making a profit, and the more they sold, the more of a profit they would make.

            The difference between Utilitarianism and Kantianism is that "Utilitarianism is concerned only with consequences of an action and Kantianism does not make decisions based on consequences, but rather on what Kant calls the 'Good Will'"(Salazar 21). Good Will is when "people have good intentions and use good reasoning to come to conclusions that make their good intentions effective"(Salazar 21). Clearly Purdue Pharma had only their best interest in their intentions, and were only working on the fact that they would make a profit, and that they would benefit for themselves. Purdue Pharma harmed thousands of people just to make a profit, which in the long run only had the top executives benefit from the payout.

            Kantianism explains that you must not lie, cheat or manipulate others to get your desired outcome. When Purdue Pharma marketed OxyContin they took away people's ability to think rationally. When people became dependent on the drug they were immediately manipulated. With this the consumers needed more and more OxyContin which in turn gave Purdue Pharma a larger profit. With that being said, Purdue Pharma's actions are impermissible under Kantianism because they manipulated consumers while also using them as a mere means.

Virtue Theory

           Virtue Theory is to "act so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to avoid vicious or bad character traits" (Salazar 22). Clearly Purdue Pharma did not act based on good character traits and did not do whatever they could to avoid having poor character. Virtue Theory evaluates "virtues or the opposite of virtues, which are called 'vices.' Courage, honesty, wisdom, justice, prudence, temperance, intelligence, insight, are, compassion, leadership and teamwork are just a few of the many virtues that can help business people....a few vices that have been severely detrimental to overwise savvy and innovative business people are greed, dishonesty, and selfishness" (Salazar 23). 

    Purdue Pharma demonstrated actions that correspond with the detrimental vices. To start, the Sackler Family, and the top executives were so greedy and money hungry that they did whatever they wanted, harmed whoever, and went against their moral values to make money and to make a profit. In addition to greed, they were selfish and only looked after themselves when producing OxyContin. Their selfishness stems from their greed, in them wanting to have more money in their pockets, and fueling a problem that could be resolved if they acted ethically. They were also dishonest with the consumers and doctors when first marketing OxyContin. Purdue Pharma lied about the dangers of taking the drug, and the possible consequences that could come from consuming the opioid. Purdue Pharma's actions are impermissible by Virtue Theory because they went against all the good virtues, and acted on bad or poor characteristics. 

Justified Ethics Evaluation

            In my opinion Purdue Pharmaceuticals actions were unethical and morally incorrect. Purdue Pharma could have avoided most of the problems that were caused if they were upfront and direct about the effects that OxyContin had on the consumer. Rather than being transparent, Purdue Pharma was focused on the sales and marketing of the new opioid.

            Purdue Pharma, and the scientists creating the drugs had to be aware of the side effects, the risks, and the dangers of prescribing the drug, however they overlooked it, and did not properly explain the risks to doctors and medical professionals. Purdue Pharma should have known that the safety of the consumers was at risk, and with knowing that they should have taken the proper actions to either revise the drug to make it less harmful to the consumers, or properly educate the medical professionals who are marketing and prescribing this opioid.

            When OxyContin started to become the biggest factor in the opioid crisis, Purdue Pharma failed to recall OxyContin from the market, or do anything to alter the chemical makeup of the substance. Instead of finding a solution to OxyContin fueling the opioid crisis, Purdue Pharma stood by, and in the long run, it ended up harming them, as they had to pay billions of dollars in settlements, and file for bankruptcy.

            Overall, Purdue Pharmaceuticals did not do what an ethically driven corporation would have done. A company that practices basic morals and ethics would find a proper solution to keep the wellbeing of the consumers at first hand. Purdue Pharmaceuticals did not operate on an ethically driven basis because they were not looking out for everybody who could have been affected by the marketing of OxyContin.

Action Plan

Throughout the past decades the opioid crisis has been a prominent problem in United States. Pharmaceutical companies created opioids with the idea in mind that they would be helping patients deal with paid after injuries, or surgeries, rather people started to become dependent and addicted to the substances.

While it might not have been easy, or economically feasible at the time, Purdue Pharma could have recalled OxyContin because it was destructive to public health, and could have either found a better alternative to OxyContin, or could have changed the chemical makeup of the substance to make it less addictive or mind-altering. In addition to recalling the opioid, Purdue Pharma could have had better marketing tactics, and provided more clear and concise information regarding the dangers of taking OxyContin.

Purdue Pharma as a corporation needs to have a mission statement to demonstrate and explain their values, and beliefs as a company. An example of a mission statement would be, while excelling in the pursuit of new medicines, compassionate, and the safety of our customers is at the forefront of our decisions.

In addition to the mission statement the company should have a set of core values and beliefs in which their corporation revolves around. Some values may include the physical and mental safety of the customer, transparency, honesty, innovation, and compassion. The biggest value should be the safety, both mentally and physically of the customer. If the majority of the customer base is not responding to the drug as desired, and it is harmful to their health, ethically Purdue Pharma should do something to help, considering they produced the product in the first place. Along with safety, compassion and willingness to care are values that should be upheld by Purdue Pharma. The corporation should be honest with the public about the product they are marketing, and fully transparent in not only the marketing process, but also in the research and development process. Lastly, innovation is a key value considering Purdue Pharma creates, innovates, and produces.

To ensure ethical productivity, and prevent unethical behavior, it would be in Purdue Pharma’s best interest to start by recalling OxyContin and making in unavailable to all consumers. In addition, Purdue Pharma should consult a panel of doctors, researchers, and medical professionals while they develop new drugs to, they are safe for the consumer. Lastly, there should be intensified trainings with new and current employees going over the dangers of drugs use, and how they can help the community.

One solution is that Purdue Pharma should hire different doctors and researchers who would belong to the company. This will ensure that they are always available to give their input and are able to evaluate the new drugs that are being introduced to the market. This will also allow the company to become aware of the risks, and dangers that consumers could endure when taking any drug. In addition to hiring doctors and researchers, Purdue Pharma should also fire people on the marketing team who did not act with full transparency when advertising the product, while also firing any executive board member, or scientist who had a hand in creating the opioid, knew the dangers of it, and failed to say anything to the public.

It would be in the best interest of Purdue Pharma to fully disclose the side effects and problems that occur or can occur when taking the drug, and make sure that it is clear enough for the general public to understand. The marketing team should not use any technical jargon, or medical terms that could be confusing for the consumers to understand and interpret.

This proposed plan will benefit Purdue Pharma, and increase not only productivity and profits for a variety of reasons. First, acknowledging your mistake, and taking the proper action to correct it will instill more trust from the consumers in you. With this, the company will be more profitable because people will want to invest and purchase the product that Purdue Pharma is creating. The proposed plan conforms to the mission statement and values because it is keeping the safety of the consumers at hand, which is the most important idea, while also acting ethically and socially responsible for their actions in the present and in the future.

Nicole Bourgeois

References

Adams, K. (2020, August 18). 49 states file $2.15 trillion opioid epidemic lawsuit against Purdue Pharma: Purdue Pharma is being sued for $2.15 trillion by 49 states, Washington, D.C., and various U.S. territories for its role in the opioid crisis, according to CNN. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/opioids/49-states-file-2-15-trillion-opioid-epidemic-lawsuit-against-purdue.html

Michael Balsamo and Geoff Mulvihill, T. (2020, October 21). U.S. Officials: OxyContin Maker To Plead Guilty To 3 Criminal Charges. Retrieved December 17, 2020, from https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/10/21/purdue-pharma-guilty-please-opioid-epidemic

Center for Disease Control (CDC). (2020, March 19). Opioid Overdose: Understanding the Epidemic. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html

Joseph, A. (2019, September 16). Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy. What happens with lawsuits it faces? Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.statnews.com/2019/09/16/if-purdue-pharma-declares-bankruptcy-what-would-it-mean-for-lawsuits-against-the-opioid-manufacturer/

Purdue Pharmaceuticals. (2019, May 28). Purpose Statement and Values. Retrieved November, from https://www.purduepharma.com/about/ethics-and-compliance/purpose-statement-values/

Salazar, Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.

Shraddha Chakradhar @scchak and Casey Ross @caseymross, Chakradhar, S., Ross, C., Chakradhar Reporter, A., & Chakradhar Reporter, S. (2019, December 30). The history of OxyContin told through Purdue Pharma documents. Retrieved November 23, 2020, from https://www.statnews.com/2019/12/03/oxycontin-history-told-through-purdue-pharma-documents/