Legal intervention in the USA’s opioid crisis
The most recent instalment in litigation relating to the USA’s opioid crisis saw the rejection of a case brought by Arizona before the Supreme Court. The state sought a pay-out by the owners of Purdue Pharma LP, a key player in opioid manufacturing. Arizona’s Attorney General accused the firm of having taken a total of $4 billion out of the company between 2008 – 2016 upon becoming aware of the potential liability it faced as a result of its marketing strategies. The case was rejected by the Supreme Court without comment, likely on the grounds that Arizona sought to bypass the lower courts by attempting to have the trial held at Supreme Court level. This is one in a number of cases brought by US states against pharmaceutical companies seeking compensation for the effects of the US opioid crisis which has resulted in over 400 000 deaths. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, 47 600 opioid related deaths were recorded in 2017 alone.
Despite Arizona’s failure in Monday’s case, there have been instances where pharmaceuticals have been forced to pay fines as well as large sums in order to settle opioid related claims. Most significantly, in October, four pharmaceutical companies agreed to a $260 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by two Ohio counties, shortly before what would have been the first federal trial relating to the opioid epidemic. Whilst these pay-outs are significant and could be regarded as a necessary element of moral retribution for any part played in the crisis, legal intervention, particularly in the manner that has occurred thus far, does raise some questions. Firstly, it is important to note that where these cases are settled, whilst pecuniary relief is offered, this often comes at the expense of the disclosure of any harmful industry practices relating to the distribution and marketing of opioids. Secondly, whilst it is important to hold the relevant pharmaceuticals to account, it is noted that the current crisis is also being fuelled by opioids which make their way into North America via underground means. For example, in the form of synthetic fentanyl (a type of opioid) which is often manufactured in China and enters the USA illegally via Mexico, through the ports and in the post. This is taken by opioid users or cut with other illegal drugs to make them more potent. Given its strength fentanyl is closely associated with drug overdose deaths in what has become to be described as the ‘third wave’ of the crisis.
Therefore, whilst legal intervention is important to provide redress for the extensive damage caused, it should not be viewed as a substitute for tackling the changing nature of the crisis and targeting the increased availability of illicit synthetic opioids.
Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-purduepharma-opioids/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-arizona-opioid-case-against-purdue-sackler-family-idUSKBN1YD1LE
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/18/health/opioid-crisis-fast-facts/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2019/08/23/fentanyl-flowed-through-us-postal-service-vehicles-crossing-southern-border/?arc404=true
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/nyregion/brooklyn-opioid-investigation.html
