If That Figure Is Correct, That Is a Massive Infiltration of Hezbollah by...
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Did Not Just Say That About the Bondi Terror...
Some of Us May Die, But It's a Sacrifice Democrats Are Willing to...
Hamas Operatives Funneled Over $8 Million to Military Wing in Italian Fundraising Scheme
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Is Pregnant
Louisiana Conspiracy Used Chop Shop and Fake Company to Sell Stolen Tractors, Excavators,...
Over $200,000 in Cryptocurrency Forfeited in Multi-State Elder Fraud Case
Tweaking the Naughty List: Cops Seize 55 Pounds of Drugs Disguised as Christmas...
Jamaican National Sentenced to More Than 24 Years in Federal Meth Trafficking Case
Why is Ilhan Omar's Husband's Investment Firm Removing Names From Their Website?
Tennessee Bookkeeper Who Stole $4.6 Million From Clients Sentenced to Prison
Make Vehicles Affordable Again
FBI Saves Taxpayers Billions in HQ Relocation
Gunman Dead, 3 Injured After Opening Fire on Idaho Sheriff's Office
Indicted Democrat Gets Dragged For Post Hiding $100k Ring Bought With Dirty Money
OPINION

Two Courts Debunk Widely Accepted Opioid Myths

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
AP Photo/Toby Talbot, File

Since 2014, state and local governments have filed thousands of lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies they blame for causing the "opioid crisis" by exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the risks of prescription pain medication. The theory underlying these cases is pretty straightforward: Drug manufacturers lied, and people died.

Advertisement

Two recent rulings -- one by a California judge, the other by the Oklahoma Supreme Court -- show how misleading this widely accepted narrative is. Both decisions recognize that undertreatment of pain is a real problem, and that bona fide patients rarely become addicted to prescription opioids, let alone die as a result.

Three California counties, joined by the city of Oakland, started the flood of litigation against opioid manufacturers seven years ago when they filed a complaint arguing that the companies they sued created a "public nuisance" by encouraging increased use of their products through a false or misleading marketing campaign. The four jurisdictions sought more than $50 billion in damages.

Following a bench trial that began on April 19 and wrapped up at the beginning of last month, Orange County Superior Court Judge Peter J. Wilson concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove any of their allegations. In a scathing 42-page ruling issued on Nov. 1, Wilson said the supposedly incriminating statements cited by the plaintiffs were neither false nor misleading.

As Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, noted in a 2016 review of the evidence, "addiction occurs in only a small percentage of persons who are exposed to opioids -- even among those with preexisting vulnerabilities." The California plaintiffs nevertheless argued that it was false or misleading to say that "most" pain patients who take opioids do not show signs of addiction.

That statement is consistent even with the plaintiffs' claim that one in four patients become addicted, an estimate that Wilson concluded was not supported by the evidence. "The more reliable data," he said, "would suggest less than 5%, rather than 25%."

Advertisement

Related:

CONSERVATISM

Similarly, the plaintiffs portrayed the concept of "pseudoaddiction," which posits that doctors might mistakenly view patients desperate for pain relief as "drug-seeking" addicts, as nothing but a marketing ploy. But as Wilson noted, "this is a medically recognized term," and California law acknowledges the potential for such confusion.

The plaintiffs viewed any suggestion that an opioid "improves function" as deceptive. But Wilson thought it was "beyond debate" that opioids can improve function by controlling pain well enough for a patient to resume quotidian activities such as shopping, cooking and cleaning.

Wilson noted that the plaintiffs "made no effort to distinguish between medically appropriate and medically inappropriate prescriptions." Since both California and the federal government have determined that the benefits of medically appropriate opioid use outweigh its risks, he said, a rise in prescriptions by itself cannot constitute a "public nuisance."

A week later, the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejected similar claims against Johnson & Johnson, one of the defendants in the California case. The court said Cleveland County Judge Thad Balkman, who in a landmark 2019 ruling held the company liable for his state's opioid-related problems, "erred in extending the public nuisance statute to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids."

Like Wilson, the justices emphasized the distinction between use and abuse. While "improper use of prescription opioids led to many of these (opioid-related) deaths," they said, "few deaths occurred when individuals used pharmaceutical opioids as prescribed."

Advertisement

The court noted that "opioids are currently a vital treatment option" for chronic pain, "a persistent and costly health condition" that "affects millions of Americans." It added that the Food and Drug Administration "has endorsed properly managed medical use of opioids (taken as prescribed) as safe, effective pain management, and rarely addictive."

That is not the impression left by the lawsuits that seek to blame drug companies for opioid-related deaths, which nowadays overwhelmingly involve illicit fentanyl. Patients should not have to suffer from unrelieved pain simply because the medication they need can be abused.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement