CASE NOTES
Case Study 1: Opioid Responsibility: Big Pharma, Doctors, Consultants, and Patients
Written by Anastasia Cortez
Case Summary
Purdue Pharma introduced OxyContin in 1995 with an unprecedented marketing effort that
aimed to create a wide market for the opioid pain reliever. Their success is convincing the
medical community that OxyContin was a safe and effective drug laid the groundwork for the
Case Analysis
is an example of
unethical company behavior, primarily in the context of marketing. The case also can serve to
Critical Thinking Questions and Suggested Answers
1. Identify unethical behaviors that contributed to the success of OxyContin. Some
stakeholders to consider include Arthur Sackler, Richard Sackler, the Purdue
marketing department, Purdue sales representatives, prescribing physicians,
patients, and the FDA.
ing Sacklers grew the company by inventing the practice of aggressively
marketing products towards doctors, undermining the standard practice of respecting
judgment, and letting them independently make decisions about
used while marketing OxyContin. When Richard Sackler disregarded and dismissed
marketing department to also ignore evidence and prioritize sales. Sales representatives
were given ambitious sales goals and dishonest information to share with doctors and
members. One thing to note is that the practice of marketing to doctors with vacations,
conferences, promotional items, and such has decreased in part because doctors
identified these incentives as a potential conflict of interest, perhaps as a result of patient
perception/backlash.
2. Are pharmaceutical companies more responsible for the safety of their products
than the doctors who prescribe medication to their patients?
The medical field licenses doctors as experts. Doctors are also the mediators between
patients and access to medical care and prescription products. Purdue worked within this
system by marketing OxyContin aggressively towards doctors. Rather than assigning
responsibility (are doctors more responsible?), it would be fairer to say that Purdue
3. Who should be the target for pharmaceutical company product marketing,
doct
medication like Purdue did for opioids?
An ethical marketing executive would identify a market, not create one in this case
imagine making people sick in order to sell a cure. Marketing of prescription medicine
4. How much responsibility should a company have if their product harms more
stakeholders than the actual users of their products? Is there a limit to a
ful product?
It is likely that students will limit product liability to actual users, although people
directly harmed as a consequence of use (for example, family members of addicts)
5. If a pharmaceutical company genuinely believes that a medication is a safe
product when they release it, should they be responsible for unexpected or
would the
addiction epidemic then be their fault?)
Even if Purdue did not realize that OxyContin was addictive when initially released, it
appears that they had reports from the field that indicated addiction might be an issue
6. What do you think is a fair penalty for Purdue in this situation? For Richard
Sackler?
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines empower the U.S. government to punish a
company up by imposing fines proportional to their malfeasance. Generally, fines are
continue by offering anti-addiction programs (profitably) to double down on its
enough to steer them in a more ethical direction? Offer to compare Purdue to tobacco
companies, which continue to do business. The Tobacco Settlement required