The Ethics of Business Success: A Case Study on the Sackler Family and OxyContin

Overview of the opioid epidemic and Purdue Pharma's role

 Write a report of 2000 words answering the 2-part question in the box below. You should base your answer on one of the following case studies:

• If you are studying a degree related to Health and Social Care, you should base your report on the The Sackler Family and OxyContin case study.

• If you are studying a degree related to Hospitality, Tourism and Events, you should base your report on the Museum and Galleries supported by the Sackler Family case study.

• If you are studying a degree related to Business or Law, you should base your report on the The Sackler Family Business case study. (100 marks)

The current opioid epidemic in the U.S. sees approximately 49,000 people a year die of overdoses caused by opioids, including prescription painkillers, heroin and fentanyl. One of the main contributors to this is the prescription painkiller OxyContin. The billionaire Sackler family own Purdue Pharma, the pharmaceutical company who make the highly addictive painkiller OxyContin. They are currently facing hundreds of lawsuits by American states and individuals who are claiming that Purdue Pharma put ‘profits over people’ when they downplayed the addictive nature of OxyContin. The first charge of unethical behaviour is that the company claimed that large doses of the opioid could be administered without being addictive, as the drug was coated in a slow release outer shell. This meant that only 2 tablets needed to be taken in a 24-hour period. However, many people experienced severe withdrawal symptoms before a single 12-hour period was up. Additionally, it was found that the tablets could easily be ground down so that the slow release coating was erased. These factors resulted in addiction and deaths. Purdue Pharma claimed that the way the drug was taken was the responsibility of the individual rather than how they had manufactured it.

Can an organisation be described as successful if it is not ethical? Use your case study to illustrate your answer.

What can the organisation in your case study do to protect itself against unethical behaviour?

Another charge of unethical behaviour lies in the aggressive marketing of the drug, with the company spending more on promotion than any other comparable drug. They invited doctors and medical professionals across the US to all expenses paid conferences in resorts. Purdue Pharma also targeted doctors who were frequent prescribers of pain medication for chronic pain sufferers. This meant that OxyContin became one of the most commonly prescribed opioids in the U.S.

Analysis of the question of business success and ethics

In 2010 when the patent for OxyContin expired meaning it could be sold as a generic medication at a cheaper price, Purdue Pharma finally admitted that there was a problem with the medication and it should not be sold. They made a change to the drug resulting in a new patent. This new patent meant that the pricing structure was protected and profits were not compromised. The Sackler family has been accused of exploiting people’s weaknesses for financial gain.

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/03/purdue-opioids-lawsuit-oxycontin-california- maine-hawaii

Adapted from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/

The Sackler family is an extremely wealthy American-British family who owns Purdue Pharma, a pharmaceutical company which is famous for manufacturing the highly addictive painkiller, OxyContin. This drug has been identified as one of the main causes of the opioid crisis in the United States, which has seen an alarming increase in addiction and death. The Sackler family are also famous for their philanthropy and generous donations to museums, galleries and universities across the world. In February 2018, an article in The Guardian equated the Sackler family to a drug cartel as both make money from the suffering of those addicted to the drugs they sell; one legally, the other illegally. The article further argues that donations given by the Sackler family to museums, galleries and universities across the world should be declined in the same way as donations from drug cartels.

Respected institutions such as the Louvre, the Guggenheim, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the National Gallery have all received generous donations from the Sackler family. Some have even named libraries, wings and galleries after them. However, since the revelation of the opioid scandal and the news that many U.S. states are suing the family, many of these institutions have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the Sackler family. The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim in New York, the Tate art group in the UK, the National Portrait Gallery and the Serpentine Gallery in London have all refused to accept further gifts or donations from the Sackler family.

The moral issue here is that those institutions who accept the Sackler family money, make the Sackler family seem respectable by associating their respected names with the family, and are therefore complicit in ‘reputation laundering’ as well as besmirching their own reputation.

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/15/met-museum-rejects-sackler-family-donations- oxycontin-makers-gifts

Adapted from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/feb/16/sackler-family-blood-money-disgrace-museums

The Sackler family own the pharmaceutical company, Purdue Pharma, which is responsible for manufacturing the highly addictive opioid OxyContin. At various stages of the company’s history, family members have sat on the board. As of May 2019, 45 U.S. states and 1,500 cities were suing Purdue Pharma for misconduct in marketing and sales of a highly profitable drug. The company has been accused of making false claims about OxyContin, branding it as ‘Hope in a bottle’. They have also been accused of misleading both the public and medical professionals about the drug’s effectiveness whilst downplaying the addictive nature of the drug.

The company’s marketing strategy has been criticised for being aggressive and manipulative. In the mid-1990s when OxyContin was launched, medical professionals were treated to all expenses paid conferences in resorts. There is a significant amount of data to support the fact that this tactic has an impact on prescribing decisions. State data was also used to target specific areas where there was a high level of pain killers being prescribed to chronic pain suffers. The number of sales representatives hired by the firm increased significantly, and the budget used to promote the drug was significantly higher than any other comparable drug. As a result, OxyContin became one of the most highly prescribed drugs on the U.S. market, and the fact that it was highly addictive meant that it continued to be prescribed. The Iowa Attorney General, Tom Miller, said that Purdue Pharma was ‘recklessly indifferent to the impact of their actions, despite ever-mounting evidence that their deceptions were resulting in an epidemic of addiction and death’.

If you are studying a degree related to Health and Social Care, you may wish to focus your analysis section on 3-4 of the following points:

• Success from the perspective of the Purdue Pharma and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how profits have been affected by the unethical behaviour.)

• Success from the perspective of the public and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include public protests sparked by the unethical behaviour.)

• Success from the perspective of the medical staff and how this is affected by unethical behaviour. (This might include how the doctors prescribing the medication feel, or how the medical staff dealing with the overdoses feel about Purdue Pharma