Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday September 21 2019, @10:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-must-be-on-drugs dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Sacklers threaten to scrap opioid deal if they aren't shielded from lawsuits

Lawyers for OxyContin-maker Purdue Pharma filed a new complaint late Wednesday threatening that the company's mega-rich owners, the Sackler family, could pull out of a proposed multi-billion-dollar opioid settlement deal if a bankruptcy judge doesn't shield the family from outstanding state lawsuits.

Purdue's lawyers argue that if the lawsuits continue, the Sacklers will have to waste "hundreds of millions of dollars" on legal costs that could otherwise go to claimants in the settlement. The family's lawyers added that in that event, the family "may be unwilling—or unable—to make the billions of dollars of contributions" to the proposed settlement.

State attorneys general, however, argue that the tactic is yet another move designed to shield the Sacklers and their ill-gotten wealth.

"This filing isn't a surprise. It's yet another effort by Purdue to avoid accountability and shield the Sackler family fortune, and we will be opposing it," Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, told the New York Times.

Related:


Original Submission

Related Stories

Opioid Talks Fail, Purdue Bankruptcy Filing Expected 25 comments

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/opioid-talks-impasse-purdue-bankruptcy-filing-expected-65456920

OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma is expected to file for bankruptcy after settlement talks over the nation's deadly overdose crisis hit an impasse, attorneys general involved in the talks said Saturday.

The breakdown puts the first federal trial over the opioid epidemic on track to begin next month, likely without Purdue, and sets the stage for a complex legal drama involving nearly every state and hundreds of local governments.

Purdue, the family that owns the company and a group of state attorneys general had been trying for months to find a way to avoid trial and determine Purdue's responsibility for a crisis that has cost 400,000 American lives over the past two decades.

An email from the attorneys general of Tennessee and North Carolina, obtained by The Associated Press, said that Purdue and the Sackler family had rejected two offers from the states over how payments under any settlement would be handled and that the family declined to offer counterproposals.

"As a result, the negotiations are at an impasse, and we expect Purdue to file for bankruptcy protection imminently," Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery and North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein wrote in their message, which was sent to update attorneys general throughout the country on the status of the talks.

[...] The impasse in the talks comes about six weeks before the scheduled start of the first federal trial under the Cleveland litigation, overseen by U.S. District Judge Dan Polster. That trial will hear claims about the toll the opioid epidemic has taken on two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit.

A bankruptcy filing by Purdue would most certainly remove the company from that trial.

The bankruptcy judge would have wide discretion on how to proceed. That could include allowing the claims against other drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies to move ahead while Purdue's cases are handled separately. Three other manufacturers have already settled with the two Ohio counties to avoid the initial trial.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

Makers of OxiCotin, Purdue Pharma, Files Reorganization Chapter 11 "Bankrupty" 55 comments

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49711618

In the face of thousands of lawsuits about the alleging abusive practices contributing to the opioid crisis in the US, Purdue Pharma (makers of OxiCotin) are filing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. If the courts agree, this would allow them to restructure their debts and continue operations.

"Under the terms of the [proposed] deal, Purdue is to be dissolved and the money raised - estimated to be about $10bn-$12bn (£8bn-£9.7bn), including a minimum cash contribution of $3bn from the Sackler family - will go towards settling the lawsuits. The Sacklers have also offered an additional $1.5bn from the eventual sale of Mundipharma, another pharmaceutical firm owned by the family.

Several of the states that oppose the deal, such as New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, have questioned how Purdue came up with the contribution figure.

The states want the Sackler family to put in more of its own money into the deal."

Note: Bankruptcy is not what regular people think it is. Similar to the "kill" command in Unix/Linux, there are lots of versions which may or may not do what people think. As an example, see: https://www.credit.com/debt/filing-for-bankruptcy-difference-between-chapters-7-11-13/


Original Submission

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma to Plead Guilty to Three Criminal Charges 67 comments

OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma to Plead Guilty to Three Criminal Charges

OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma to plead guilty to 3 criminal charges as part of an $8 billion-plus settlement

WASHINGTON (AP) — Purdue Pharma, the company that makes OxyContin, the powerful prescription painkiller that experts say helped touch off an epidemic, will plead guilty to three federal criminal charges as part of a settlement of more than $8 billion, Justice Department officials told The Associated Press.

The company will plead guilty to a criminal information being filed Wednesday in federal court in New Jersey to three counts, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and violating federal anti-kickback laws, the officials said.

The deal does not release any of the company's executives or owners — members of the wealthy Sackler family — from criminal liability. A criminal investigation is ongoing.

The officials were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Also at: Business Insider, CBS News, and ABC News.

Guilty pleas? You seldom see that - these corporates always seem to get away with weasel word statements to the effect, "We acknowledge no wrongdoing blah blah blah . . . "

Purdue Pharma Pleads Guilty to Opioid Crisis Charges, Will Become a Public Benefit Corporation

OxyContin maker to plead guilty to federal criminal charges, pay $8 billion, and will close the company

Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, has agreed to plead guilty to three federal criminal charges for its role in creating the nation's opioid crisis and will pay more than $8 billion and close down the company.

The money will go to opioid treatment and abatement programs. The privately held company has agreed to pay a $3.5 billion fine as well as forfeit an additional $2 billion in past profits, in addition to the $2.8 billion it agreed to pay in civil liability.
"Purdue Pharma actively thwarted the United States' efforts to ensure compliance and prevent diversion," said Drug Enforcement Administration Assistant Administrator Tim McDermott. "The devastating ripple effect of Purdue's actions left lives lost and others addicted."

The company doesn't have $8 billion in cash available to pay the fines. So Purdue will be dissolved as part of the settlement, and its assets will be used to create a new "public benefit company" controlled by a trust or similar entity designed for the benefit of the American public. The Justice Department said it will function entirely in the public interest rather than to maximize profits. Its future earnings will go to paying the fines and penalties, which in turn will be used to combat the opioid crisis.

That new company will continue to produce painkillers such as OxyContin, as well as drugs to deal with opioid overdose. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, who announced the settlement, defended the plans for the new company to continue to sell that drug, saying there are legitimate uses for painkillers such as OxyContin.

Also at The New York Times, Bloomberg, NBC, and CBS.

Previously:


Original Submission


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Corelli's A on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:24PM (9 children)

    by Corelli's A (1772) on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:24PM (#896942)

    Bankruptcy judges take a dim view of people extracting money from a corporation when bankruptcy is on the horizon. How many years ago was it clear that the opioid crisis would be a giant liabiility? I'd like to see that question answered to the satisfaction of the court.

    Given the direct involvement of the Sacklers in marketing oxycontin over multiple decades and in spite of evidence of its detrimental effects, I believe criminal liability ought to be on the table, especially pour encourager les autres.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @01:28AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @01:28AM (#896970)

      Given the direct involvement of the Sacklers in marketing oxycontin over multiple decades and in spite of evidence of its detrimental effects, I believe criminal liability ought to be on the table, especially pour encourager les autres.

      Great. When do we go after Anheuser Busch for causing alcoholism?

      • (Score: 5, Touché) by Pav on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:02AM (3 children)

        by Pav (114) on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:02AM (#896975)

        Exactly when they get doctors to prescribe their product with sponsored studies that show it helps with pain while not being very addictive.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:58AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:58AM (#897027)

          I didn't know the Sacklers had the power to write prescriptions.
          It's their first amendment right to advertise their product, and in our capitalist society manufacturers of legal products naturally want to sell more of it.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:30AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:30AM (#897035)

            It's fraud when you knowingly lie about it.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 24 2019, @11:56PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 24 2019, @11:56PM (#898330) Journal

            Are you related to Donald? The Trump admires anyone who can make money. The more money one accumulates, the better a person he is. Money is the only metric the Trump needs to judge your character. If you are poor, you are trash. If you are filthy rich, then you are god-like. Check your family tree. Is your skin orange-ish?

    • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:23AM (2 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:23AM (#897005)

      Bankruptcy judges take a dim view of people extracting money from a corporation when bankruptcy is on the horizon.

      All judges seem to take an even dimmer view of people who enrich themselves at the cost of harming (or killing) innocent people.

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:22AM (1 child)

        by redneckmother (3597) on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:22AM (#897047)

        Errmm, "all judges"?

        I'm a bit worried about some of the latest appointments, particularly on the Federal level.

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:24PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:24PM (#897108)

          If they took a dim view of this sort of corporate malfeasance, they wouldn't be nominated for those courts. The Democrats aren't quite as shameless about it as the Republicans are, but both parties routinely nominate judges that fall well short on key constitutional issues.

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Sunday September 22 2019, @11:52AM

      by RamiK (1813) on Sunday September 22 2019, @11:52AM (#897071)

      Given the direct involvement of the Sacklers in marketing oxycontin over multiple decades and in spite of evidence of its detrimental effects, I believe criminal liability ought to be on the table, especially pour encourager les autres.

      Maybe but unlikely. The fact the evidences were presented in medical publications for decades and other countries followed through and limited the use of those drugs to in-hospital care also implicates the doctors prescribing the drugs and the regulators who didn't see fit to act based on the evidence. So, with so many power dynamics and individuals on the line, someone is going to let them get away with it to prevent the spread of liability from reaching their doorstep.

      The truth is that the only reason oxy is taken off the shelves (and marijuana is being legalized) is because the relevant patents expired. These trials are there to smooth corporate operations. Not to seek justice. Not to compensate victims. The judges will likely play along unless approached by someone in power who is in conflict with the family or a politician seeking to make a name for themselves.

      --
      compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:33PM (9 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:33PM (#896947)

    will have to waste "hundreds of millions of dollars" on legal costs

    Makes me wonder: what kind of elasticity is there in the legal sector? Are there boom/bust cycles where some years the profession as a whole takes in a much larger multiple than other years?

    Certainly, I can't see lawyers for either side being too enthusiastic about supporting a shielding of the Sacklers from further litigation...

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:42PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:42PM (#896951)

      "Certainly, I can't see lawyers for either side being too enthusiastic about supporting a shielding of the Sacklers from further litigation..."

      -

      Obviously you don't have much experience with lawyers.

      A lawyer will throw his own mother under a bus if it brings a verdict that pays big.

      • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:41PM

        by DeVilla (5354) on Wednesday September 25 2019, @07:41PM (#898726)

        I believe the thought was "shielding of the Sacklers from further litigation" means less verdicts that pay big. Sure their lawyer wants to win and get them off. But there might be more money defending them in the long term if they lose. The lawyer just has to be sure not to seem so inept as to get fired.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:09AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:09AM (#896960)

      The boom cycle for attorneys is Yale, Harvard, and Stanford graduation day. The bust cycle never occurs.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:31AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:31AM (#896963) Journal
        Nobody respects those who burn out before they make partner.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:42AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:42AM (#896964)

      Major litigation often takes years to play out, so you don't really see major short term variation. The hundreds of millions that the Sacklers are musing about possibly spending would potentially be spend over the course of decades, not just one crazy big check they would sign at a specific time. Lawyers typically have multiple cases in-flight at any one time.

      There was apparently a Vietnam draft eligibility related case still going in 2006, if that gives you any idea how long these things can drag out to smooth out the short term variations... : https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-running-civil-court-case-by-an-individual/ [guinnessworldrecords.com]

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:31AM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:31AM (#896986)

        a Vietnam draft eligibility related case still going in 2006

        Sure, but how many billable hours can one, in good conscience, charge for a case that drags on so? It's not like the draft eligibility case is wholly consuming a crack legal team 200 man hours per week for 40 years...

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 5, Funny) by stretch611 on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:56AM

          by stretch611 (6199) on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:56AM (#897002)

          ...is wholly consuming a crack legal team 200 man hours per week...

          In this case it would be an "opioid legal team" not crack

          --
          Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
        • (Score: 2, Funny) by redneckmother on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:29AM

          by redneckmother (3597) on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:29AM (#897048)

          "... in good conscience ..."

          Wait - what? I thought we were talking about lawyers!

          --
          Mas cerveza por favor.
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:17AM

      by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:17AM (#897031)

      will have to waste "hundreds of millions of dollars" on legal costs

      Makes me wonder: what kind of elasticity is there in the legal sector?

      If they want to avoid waste, they could always plead guilty.

      --
      It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
  • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:43PM (2 children)

    by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:43PM (#896953) Journal

    If you’re on the Sackler legal defense team, what good is a deal that has no limit on total liability because of other litigants?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:27PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:27PM (#897109)

      It doesn't matter whether it's good or not, that's not a power that the courts have. Each person that the Sackler family harmed has a legal right to file suit to seek compensation for that harm. Whether or not they accept this settlement should have no impact on other, unrelated, court cases even over the same issues. At most, the settlement might be referred to by another case, but even there the Sacklers would have the right to force the plaintiff to prove that they harmed that particular party.

      • (Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:21PM

        by Rupert Pupnick (7277) on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:21PM (#897247) Journal

        I’m talking about good from the point of view of Team Sackler which is surely trying to get out of all legal jeopardy at minimum cost. Indeed, the courts have nothing to do with the decision the defendants make on how to settle. And of course all plaintiffs should have a right to sue (or be included in a big enough settlement). Sacklers have the choice between:

        1) Pay ~$10B followed by lots of litigation.
        2) Pay no settlement followed by lots of litigation.

        As Maura Healey says, picking option 2 is not a surprise if you won’t acknowledge responsibility, and all you’re trying to do is pay as little as possible.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by black6host on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:58PM (11 children)

    by black6host (3827) on Saturday September 21 2019, @11:58PM (#896955) Journal

    As much as I am loathe to comment on my personal affairs I have to say I have a horse in this race. As a sufferer of chronic pain I have done my dances with the opioids. I was told by a Dr. that what I was getting was "Top Shelf" (like it was a flipping liquor). Fentanyl. And all the percocets I could eat basically. And, the bastards told me I wouldn't get addicted. Right.

    I took myself off all that crap, it was not a sustainable way of managing my pain. And should I get really sick or have surgery in the future I want opioids to work for me, especially if I'm on death's door.

    These greedy, hungry, fuck you assholes have made it incredibly difficult for those that need them to get the meds they should have. Prison is too good for them. I say we put them in prison, feed them their drugs, let them withdraw and do it over and over for the time of their sentence. If they are not tougher than those who were prescribed these drugs that should turn out to be life, which is what many has lost. And, a short life at that.

    Sorry for being on a soapbox but I've lived this shit.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:14AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:14AM (#896978)

      I weaned off 75mcg fentanyl patches with weed. It took nearly an entire year, then another year using only weed then quitting that too. There no fucking way I will ever take that shit again, I'd rather have the pain. The pain level in my back after many spine surgeries is about the same as getting kicked really hard square in the nuts. It takes time to acclimate to the pain but after a while it's no big deal.
      Opioids are for addicts... period.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:49AM (2 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:49AM (#896992) Journal

        You need to distinguish between short term use and long term use. Short term use is dangerous. Long term use is...well, you keep needing to take more and more to have any effect until you reach the lethal dose...unless you have a bad reaction.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:16AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:16AM (#897000)

          15 years on fentanyl and norco. The 15 75mcg patches cost between $250-$600/month depending on whatever bug flew up the Sacklers ass. Never again.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 23 2019, @01:31AM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday September 23 2019, @01:31AM (#897338)

            These stories of people addicted to painkillers prescribed by their doctor seems to be a uniquely American thing.

            I have never heard of anyone where I come from taking opioid painkillers for longer than a couple of weeks.

            When I had a bowel resection a few years ago (holy shit! Nearly 10 years ago) I had a morphine pump for 1 day, some Tramadol for a few more days, then paracetamol.

            I am pretty sure OxyContin is not even available here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:26AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:26AM (#896985)

      Been there, done that and have the t shirt/coffee mug. I had a back injury from a car wreck. Got addicted to their cursed product about 15 yrs ogo (I'm 47). The withdrawal symptoms were pure hell. Made sure to tell the nurse and doc to never ever prescribe those meds again. Followed up with my doc to make sure they had that in my notes. I count myself lucky that I haven't had that since then, but know honestly if they prescribed it I'd probably take every last one of them and try for more. Pure hell.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:43AM (#896991)

        The withdrawal symptoms aren't too bad if your doctor leans out the dosage over time. Weed helps too (my comment above). I do remember seriously bad withdrawals the couple times my Rx was delayed and I ran out. It was hell and a half for the few days I was out of meds, and just like a junkie I couldn't wait for my fix.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by stretch611 on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:17AM (4 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:17AM (#897004)

      Fortunately, I personally have not been addicted to opioids. There was a time in my past when I had access to as much Vicodin as I wanted, but honestly, I felt it made me sleep more than get rid of the actual pain I was in.

      However, a little over 2 years ago, I was hospitalized for longer than I care to admit...
      After my surgery I had some minor pain; I asked the nurse for some ibuprofen. I was told that I was not allowed it because it was not on the list of approved drugs that was created by the hospital's doctor for me. I asked for tylenol then... same answer. Of course, if I wanted stronger meds including opiates, they were fine and pre-approved by the doctor.

      I had a choice, either get the hardcore stuff, or wait until the next day when the doctor made their rounds and ask them to approve something else.

      Is there any wonder why we have an addiction problem in this country (and others) when relatively mild over the counter pain relievers are harder to get in a hospital than opiates?

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:32PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:32PM (#897111)

        I think it's a combination of good intentions and bureaucracy. Having an approved list is important in terms of preventing unforeseen interaction between different pills.

        There's definitely a belief that patients need pain management without always considering the needs of the particular patient. Some of us have pain and discomfort tolerance so high that we barely need any and may be fine being carved up for minor surgery without anything. And then there are others that are so sensitive that they really need the maximum safe dose to get much out of it.

        IMHO, it's incredibly irresponsible of the doctor and hospital to not have somebody available to accommodate a request for safer medication.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:35PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:35PM (#897170)

          My mother had a hospital charge her 400 dollars to hand her, her own purse. In which she pulled out a bottle of generic ibuprofen and took them.

          • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 23 2019, @01:58AM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday September 23 2019, @01:58AM (#897348)

            My mother had a hospital charge her 400 dollars to hand her, her own purse. In which she pulled out a bottle of generic ibuprofen and took them.

            Jesus! What an awful way to live your life.

        • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday September 23 2019, @07:14PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday September 23 2019, @07:14PM (#897742) Journal

          There's something to what you say as far as interactions go, although I don't think there are any that are in common to both ibuprofen and acetaminophen. There could be some conditions like renal failure and ibuprofen has been known to VERY rarely cause liver problems where acetaminophen shouldn't be given with any liver impairment. However, staff who get and deliver pharmaceuticals (doctors / pharmacists / nurses) are trained to know the serious interactions as well as having EMR systems which also check for interactions when new prescriptions are up. Further, if there was a medical or interaction reason for someone to not have the medication then that reason should have been shared.

          There is also something to be said for assessing the source of the pain. "Milder" pain relievers mostly act on the end of the nerves themselves (the receptors), where opiates work on the impulse process at the transmission receptors (mu receptors primarily). So there may have been an assessed reason why surface receptor remedies wouldn't be considered effective.

          There may be other elements of the story at work we don't know, like perhaps other strategies were attempted and/or offered (cool cloths, distraction).

          That that said, this is likely far more about a nurse who was not doing his or her job / refused to call the provider for an order for something milder (and there are other mild pain relievers than ibuprofen, tylenol, and aspirin) - which is within a nurse's discretion. Yes, there are often a spectrum of pain relieving drugs placed into order sets that are available PRN. But there is nothing wrong about asking for alternate medications. Perhaps the nurse had a valid reason not to escalate the request (like wanted to catch the physician on next rounding to put in the request personally), but there had better be a reason why beyond "this is our protocol."

          --
          This sig for rent.
  • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:06AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:06AM (#896958)
    Wikipedia shows this:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family#Genealogy

    <blockquote>
    Isaac Sackler and Sophie Greenberg

            Arthur Sackler, (1913–1987),[16] married Else Finnich Jorgensen 1934 and divorced,[17][7] married Marietta Lutze 1949 and divorced, and Jillian Lesley Tully 1981 until death
                    Carol Master
                    Elizabeth Sackler
                            Michael Sackler-Berner
                    Arthur Felix Sackler
                    Denise Marika.
            Mortimer Sackler (1916–2010) obtained British citizenship and renounced American citizenship,[18] married Muriel Lazarus (1917–2009) and divorced,[19] Gertraud (Gheri) Wimmer - married 1969[20] and divorced, Theresa Elizabeth Rowling (born 1949) - married in 1980 until death
                    Ilene Sackler Lefcourt (married Gerald B. Lefcourt and divorced)
                    Kathe Sackler
                    Mortimer A. Sackler (married Jaqueline Sackler)
                    Samantha Sophia Sackler Hunt[7]
                    Marissa Sackler
                    Sophie Sackler (married Jamie Dalrymple)
                    Michael Sackler[7]
            Raymond Sackler (1920–2017), married Beverly Feldman in 1944 until death[7]
                    Richard Sackler, born 1945, married Beth Sackler and divorced.[9]
                            David Sackler (married Joss Sackler)
                            Marianna Sackler (married James Frame)
                    Jonathan Sackler
                            Clare Sackler
                            Madeleine Sackler
    </blockquote>
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:43AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:43AM (#896990)

      Not all branches of the clan are involved with Purdue Pharma. The same wiki has more info:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackler_family [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @03:00AM (#896994)

        You guys with mod points, mod down the gp comment. I am the dumb AC that posted it.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Entropy on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:07AM (26 children)

    by Entropy (4228) on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:07AM (#896959)

    Some people suffer from quite severe amounts of pain. Real painkillers(read: opiates) are the difference between being functional, and being bedridden. It's easy to say pain management, but that costs thousands of dollars and many people can't afford that kind of stuff. It's easy to say insurance, but many people do not qualify for insurance especially since Obamacare made prices about 10x worse.(unless you have a ton of children)

    In short: While everyone is saying Opiates are the worst thing ever, for many they are a lifeline. If people abuse them, then they do: Some people like doing drugs, and we're never going to stop that.

    • (Score: 2) by Username on Sunday September 22 2019, @01:05AM (24 children)

      by Username (4557) on Sunday September 22 2019, @01:05AM (#896967)

      I never really understood the logic behind blaming a personal choice on an inanimate object. Taking away an object doesn't solve the person's dysfunction. It just makes normal peoples' lives more difficult by removing a useful tool. Be it opiates, nasal decongestants, antibiotics, guns, refrigerants, spraypaints, large cups, straws, etc

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:09AM (4 children)

        by Pav (114) on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:09AM (#896976)

        Again, for the logic impaired : if you make a choice on pain management based on studies big pharma KNEW were flawed - is that on you? Surely not.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:40AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:40AM (#896989)

          So you're saying ...

          ... the FDA were asleep at the switch, but because they're "public servants" (whatever the hell that means) they're off the hook?

          Great. First place to cut the federal budget starts with those wastes of space.

          Oh, wait, it's only private individuals that get fucked by piercing the corporate veil when governments get grabby with cash. Because lord knows they're not actually willing to consider a harm reduction approach. That would give way too many rights back to the muddy little peons who need to step back in line.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:53AM (#896993)

            Yes, let's throw the baby out with the bath water.

          • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:29AM (1 child)

            by stretch611 (6199) on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:29AM (#897006)

            the FDA were asleep at the switch, but because they're "public servants" (whatever the hell that means) they're off the hook?

            What fault of it is the FDA, if all the mandatory studies handed to them contained flawed or incomplete data?

            Or do you somehow think that they told the FDA the truth while lying to all the Doctors?

            --
            Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:14PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:14PM (#897079) Journal

              What fault of it is the FDA, if all the mandatory studies handed to them contained flawed or incomplete data?

              It's their job to make sure those mandatory studies didn't contain flawed or incomplete data. After all, who is mandating those studies in the first place?

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:40AM (18 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:40AM (#897009) Journal

        The average patient to whom pain medicine is prescribed has made no "personal choice". Imagine that you collapse from a medical condition, or you are in an auto accident, or you are mugged, or carjacked and shot. You have no "choices", really. An ambulance arrives, they find all your missing bits, throw you in a basket, and begin life saving procedures, which includes morphine, and they carry your broken ass to the hospital.

        Upon arrival at the hospital, you are further doped, while doctors figure out how to put all the broken bits back together again. In post-op and/or ICU, you are prescribed a steady dose of stuff to keep you in a coma, or at least asleep most of the time, while all the broken bits merge back together into a functioning body. When you are permitted to remain conscious, doctors and nurses advise you that you are going to hurt, and all you need do is tell them, so they can make the pain go away. Remember - that advice comes from authority, not some punk ass pusher on the street.

        Some of us react differently than others. A few of us are leery of drugs, because we've read a lot, or we've lost friends to drugs, or maybe we just don't like the way we feel on drugs. But, most people? Most people TRUST those wonderful doctors and nurses. They take that advice, and without any real signs of it happening, they are HOOKED.

        Scroll back a page or so, and read those accounts of people who were hooked in similar circumstances, then beat their addictions. Marijuana makes a nice substitute, if you need it. Alcohol can be a crutch, but alcohol has it's own hazards. Be humbled at those tales of former addicts. Broken backs? I merely bruised a tail bone decades ago, and it freaking HURT!! I was able to tough that out, but at that point in my life, it was the worst pain I had ever experienced. A broken back must hurt 100 times worse, and you just don't ignore it. Do you think that you could refuse pain medication?

        There have always been druggies who have sought out feel-goods. You should not confuse those with the victims of the Sackler's drug pushing campaigns. Few, if any, of those victims had any choice.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:16AM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:16AM (#897018)

          You radicals liberals always want to absolve ppl from personal responsibility.

          • (Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:34AM (8 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:34AM (#897023) Journal

            Yeah, I'm the most radical liberal on this site. Just ask Azuma Hazuki, Aristarchus, and the other left-minded members. Grow up, Sonny boy.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:59PM (7 children)

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 22 2019, @04:59PM (#897157) Journal

              1) AC was being deeply sarcastic, and 2) Hell, even *you* manage to get something right now and then. I'll be upmodding that post of yours because it damn well deserves it. Why can't you be like this all the time?

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:42PM (6 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:42PM (#897172) Journal

                Why can't you be like this all the time?

                In a word: boring.

                In a quote:
                The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.
                F. Scott Fitzgerald

                • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:37PM (5 children)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:37PM (#897208) Journal

                  To hold the ideas, not to attempt to believe them. To hold and *believe* two opposed ideas at the same time is less F. Scott Fitzgerald and more George Orwell...

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:54PM (4 children)

                    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @06:54PM (#897215) Journal

                    That seems an indication that you didn't understand either Fitzgerald, or Orwell as well as you might have.

                    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 22 2019, @10:22PM (3 children)

                      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday September 22 2019, @10:22PM (#897270) Journal

                      The essence of Doublethink is holding two contradictory ideas and believing them both at the same time. That's directly from 1984. I'd say you're the one who doesn't know the source material. Come on, you were doing so well before and now you're back to this...

                      --
                      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 23 2019, @04:53AM (2 children)

                        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 23 2019, @04:53AM (#897418) Journal

                        In 1984 Tth problem was, and the plot for the story was, the narrator DID NOT believe. He lost his faith, lost his way, and thus rebelled against the system. Aminotrite?

                        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:08AM (1 child)

                          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:08AM (#897906) Journal

                          If that's what you took from the story, and if you even dare to set yourself up as some sort of modern-day parallel to Winston..."reading comprehension issues" doesn't even *begin* to delve into what's wrong with that. Holy Boston barbecued baked beans on black bread.

                          --
                          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:17PM

                            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 24 2019, @02:17PM (#898132) Journal

                            WTF? Compare myself to Winston? FFS, no. Thanks for reminding me of his name. Winston is the office puke type. I've had to hold a desk down a couple times in my life, but I'm most definitely NOT an office puke. Put into Winston's place, I'd be busy assembling a nice firebomb.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by sjames on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:22AM (2 children)

          by sjames (2882) on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:22AM (#897021) Journal

          The real crime committed by the Sacklers and Purdue is the fraudulent studies that convinced doctors that addiction was unlikely. As a result, instead of getting appropriate treatment to taper off, patients got cut off cold turkey and ended up turning to street drugs.

          Addiction is a significant risk in any opioid, but it is medically manageable and may be a risk worth taking, but it is essential to know how large the risk is in order to make that decision and manage the risk (and possibly the addiction) appropriately.

          Good pain management including opioids will improve healing and in some cases may make the difference between recovery or succumbing. Pain induces stress which reduces the ability to heal and weakens the immune system.

          The "just tough it out crowd" either haven't experienced anything like truly severe pain (they felt a 3/10 but thought it was a 10) or they haven't had to endure it long.

          I'd like to see them just tough it out when the pain level gets high enough to black them out. Truly severe pain blots out consciousness sooner or later.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:48PM (1 child)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @12:48PM (#897090) Journal

            The "just tough it out crowd" either haven't experienced anything like truly severe pain (they felt a 3/10 but thought it was a 10) or they haven't had to endure it long.

            There's other options too. They might simply be more badass than you, a true ITG. Or not feel pain as strongly. A 10 to you might be a 7 or 8 to them.

            Good pain management including opioids will improve healing and in some cases may make the difference between recovery or succumbing. Pain induces stress which reduces the ability to heal and weakens the immune system.

            I think this is a very good point.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday September 23 2019, @08:39AM

              by sjames (2882) on Monday September 23 2019, @08:39AM (#897468) Journal

              No amount of badass is going to prevent the blackout. It will happen even if you can "mind over matter" yourself into not being fully (or at all) conscious of the pain. A good dose of adrenaline due to a true fight or flight situation may delay it, but eventually the adrenaline will stop, blood pressure drops, shock sets in, and down you go.

              If you are physiologically less sensitive to pain, then you are EXPERIENCING LESS pain. That is, the same that would on average cause 10/10 pain will make you experience 7/10. If you get to 10/10, down you go.

        • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Username on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:15AM (3 children)

          by Username (4557) on Sunday September 22 2019, @08:15AM (#897046)

          A prescription is a choice. You can refuse ambulance service, you can refuse any service you want. The only way your anecdote makes sense is if you're unconscious and the drug is administered without your consent.

          This just sounds like, "oh, that kid had no choice but to shoot up that elementary school, the NRA made him do it."

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 22 2019, @09:15AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 22 2019, @09:15AM (#897056) Journal

            I suppose there is truth in what you say. You CAN refuse medical treatment. From experience, when you are lying on the floor, or the ground, helpless, your judgement changes. With or without pain, the helplessness is more than enough to "force" you to accept the help being offered. Add some medium pain, and you are much more willing to accept a medical professional's help, and to trust his judgement. Turn that into severe pain, then all you can think about is the pain. You'll accept almost any offer to relieve that pain.

            I believe that you can accept and understand that premise. Let us keep in mind that people are *almost* never addicted when morphine or whatever is prescribed for a short term emergency situation. There is little reason to believe that you are going to be addicted within the span of 12 to 48 hours, under the care of a doctor or hospital staff. The danger comes from longer term care.

            Given that you have already placed your trust in your doctor. Given that most injuries and ailments do hurt. Now, you have to consider the patient's history. Does the patient have experience with pain? Does the patient have any coping ability with pain? What is the patient's attitude toward drugs, in general? There's a lot of stuff to consider here - stuff that the doctor should be considering. Among all the other considerations, is, how manipulable is the patient, when healthy and pain free? Now, weakened, and in pain, he is likely to be far more manipulable. When that Voice of Authority suggests pain meds, the patient is likely to go along with Authority.

            Some of us who have "problems with authority" find it easier to reject those suggestions of longer term pain medications. Others - not so much.

            Really, you have to put yourself in that position, to the best of your ability, before you start judging these victims. Have you never been helpless? If not, I really don't think that you can understand the problem.

            As for school shooters - there is not, and cannot be, any defense of them, or their actions. Burn 'em, using your preferred burning methods. I can't care about them or their "problems".

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:12AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 23 2019, @08:12AM (#897460)

              Almost a year ago, I went to the local ER for a heart attack.

              On the 1-10 scale of pain tolerance, I am a ZERO. On the 1-10 scale of pain threshold, I'm a 0.5 on a good day.

              When the attending physician wanted to get a helicopter dispatched to take me to a regional hospital, I objected (because: cost).

              Weather prevented the (prohibitively expensive) flight. My spouse insisted I be transported via ambulance, against my strenuous objections. By that time, I had received enough morphine for the medics to disregard my protestations. and follow my spouse's directions. I was in intolerable (to me) pain.

              While I'm glad I survived, I would MUCH rather they had kept up with the morphine, put me in a room, and let me die with my credit score unaffected.

              BTW: there is a collection agency in pursuit of me for the ambulance ride, for which I can't pay.

              • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday September 23 2019, @07:51PM

                by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday September 23 2019, @07:51PM (#897760) Journal

                I'm sorry that you've had such issues, and hope that your life gets better. I'm a little confused by your saying that you wish you had died and yet you're glad you survived. I hope you keep up the hope and mindset that you're glad you survived. Heart pain (and, if you experienced it, that feeling of dread that you know your body is shutting down on you) is something you can't explain to someone who hasn't had it. Because morphine can cloud judgment is why one relies on someone else's (a spouse's) judgment. And it can be hard to know that the morphine is helping when it is. But it's also important to get off the morphine when you doctor advises you to.

                That said, I replied because there was one significant piece of advice you didn't ask for and yet I feel compelled to give it: Talk to the collection agency and don't just push them off. If you haven't had a collection bill for the hospital yet, talk to them before they send your hospital bill to a collection agency. The problems won't go away because you ignore them, and if you talk to them (both hospital and agency) you might be able to work out an arrangement that is acceptable. You may require a very long term arrangement (most places an ambulance ride can be between $1,500-$3,000) just to hospital, and transports more, but it's better to give $20 or $50 a month seemingly forever than have a lawsuit take a bigger chunk. Sometimes you can negotiate the bill downward as well so that you've rehabilitated the debt in 3-5 years. And you won't hurt yourself any more for having talked to them than what can be done if you ignore it. FWIW, IANAL, YMMV, and may it all work out for you.

                --
                This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday September 23 2019, @07:38PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday September 23 2019, @07:38PM (#897752) Journal

          You make some good points, although there are a few inconsistencies, like: You don't give someone who is unconscious morphine. You don't give someone drugs without telling them what drugs you're giving them (if they are conscious). If a patient *absolutely insists* they don't want a drug and has decision making capacities, giving it to them anyway is neither legal nor ethical - even if such a drug will save the persons life and they will surely die otherwise. If you're going to be placed into a medically induced coma (not so often these days but it can happen), it's much more likely that Propofol would be the drug of choice which is not physically addictive per se - I'm not saying it can't be abused or that a person develops psychological dependence on it (RIP Michael Jackson). Ketamine and the benzos are physically addictive, but they aren't opioids.

          I'm not denying your basic point - that people get exposed to addictive drugs via treatment, that they continue using after the medical professional has called a stop to it (hopefully), or that the Sackler's didn't attempt to deliberately induce usage at higher doses without good medical causes / concealing facts and advice. Just that the process of addiction is a little more complex than what came across from your post, and physicians often face difficult choices about whether a patient should have a given drug or not. (And sometimes they choose 'not' and the patient must live with some degree of pain.) Then again, to do the subject justice would probably require a book to be written (as I am sure they will be).

          --
          This sig for rent.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @02:35PM (#897112)

      Could we please stop making up lies about Obamacare? It did not make prices 10x worse. If your rates went up that much, you didn't have real health insurance in the first place. You were nominally insured and probably wouldn't have gotten benefits if you got sick in any meaningful way. The insurance rates had been going up more slowly after Obamacare, that is until the GOP systematically went about dismantling as much of it as possible.

      The cost savings that were supposed to come from it were always going to take years to materialize as the savings from preventative care and full inclusion phased in.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:16AM (#897019)

    i thought it was a internet meme when i first heard about "painkiller" in lollipop form.
    later i put two and two together and ... well yeah ... getting pretty dumb girls to suck on a lollipop is easier then getting them to stick a needle into their forarms, so yeah, it's really real.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hwertz on Sunday September 22 2019, @07:45AM (2 children)

    by hwertz (8141) on Sunday September 22 2019, @07:45AM (#897043)

    The problem with these greasy dirtbags (the Sacklers, not Purdue Pharma in particular) is not that they ran this company that produced these opioids. For people with chronic pain, they need things like this. You'll note that the other opioid producers are not being sued anywhere near the extent that Purdue Pharma is. There's a reason for this. It's that:

    A) Realizing how addictive they were, the Sacklers had Purdue Pharma run a sales program that encouraged and rewarded their sales force for continuing to increase OxyContin sales. Not just by letting more pharmacists know about it (which would be fine at least in my opinion), but primarily by encouraging existing pharmacists to prescribe more and more. They knew these increases were for the most part not by helping more people with their pain, but prescribing more and larger doses to people who had become addicted. Google it, they are caught dead to rights via E-Mail exchanges knowing that these top salesmen were mainly at the top by dealing with pharmacists who prescribed to addicts (clear based on pills sold going up much faster than number of customers), and by encouraging pharmacists to prescribe in ways that'd maximize the chance of new users getting addicted. The E-Mails show they were rewarding these salesmen and leaning on the rest of their sales force to adopt similar tactics.

    B) Others in this thread have covered them trying to downplay the addictiveness of these very addictive pills. Again, E-Mails show this was all the Sacklers idea, not something any normal human being working at Purdue came up with.

    C) These greasy bastards then decided they would start addiction clinics. OK, so maybe this was them regretting getting people addicted and decided to help them? OH NO!! Via E-Mails leaked, the Sacklers viewed this as "synergy" (don't know if they used that term but that's the view), making money off regular people they've turned into addicts, then making money off them AGAIN when they decide they'd better get treatment. No, really, the E-Mail shows the Sacklers sole interest in these clinics was getting a second stream of income out of these people, not to help them*. This seems like something a villain would do in a movie (and not even a good movie, a cheezy one because of how straight-up evil it is.) But the E-Mail has them dead to rights.

    *(That said, as far as I know the clinics were fully legitimate, attempting to get people off this addiction.)

    C) They've been draining money steadily out of Purdue so they could claim the company is broke and sadly unable to pay the piper, while (needless to say) resisting paying out of their own pocket, even though they are basically the ones responsible for this.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:53PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 22 2019, @05:53PM (#897181)

      even though they are basically the ones responsible for this

      You are not wrong. But lets not forget the addicts and doctors and pharmacies in this too. I know a few dozen addicts. Every last one that I know *willingly* took these pills to get high. They freely admit it and even offer to hook you up.

      The problem is pretty much all parties are scummy in this mess. They just happen to be the scummiest. Are there victims in this mess. You betcha. But most are not.

      • (Score: 2) by Pav on Monday September 23 2019, @11:59AM

        by Pav (114) on Monday September 23 2019, @11:59AM (#897513)

        If YOU were denied food you're mere weeks from murdering for a meal, becoming a cannibal etc... My grandfather saw skinny skeleton-people sitting staring into space with blood around their lips in a WWII camp in poland. He thought they were sick, but they had been driven mad by hunger and cut the glutius maximus (butt muscles) from the corpses of their bretheren - it was the only part with enough meat.

        I'm sure those cannibals deserved the blame... not the people that engineered that situation. **eyeroll**

(1)