Feminist Standpoint on 1996 Purdue Pharma Oxycontin Campaign
In this paper, I argue that Kristen Intemann and Inmaculada de Melo-Martin’s view of Sandra Harding’s feminist standpoint could be extended to the case of Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin’s effect on the opioid crisis. I will defend my thesis by arguing the four rules of Sandra Harding’s feminist standpoint against the 1996 Purdue Pharma Oxycontin campaign(Intemann& Melo-Martín, 2014).
Profit-driven research is research that can lead to bias due to conflict of interest. The concern of conflicts of interest created by commercialization may lead to biased reasoning or methodological choices in testing new drugs or medical interventions. Interests can lead research into directions that are unresponsive to pressing social needs, when it is profitable to do so. Conflict of interests can lead to conclusions about drugs and other medical treatments that are not effective or can be unsafe. Commercial interests can prevent the dissemination of new knowledge. Commercial interests can frame what research questions are important and how they are framed (Intemann& Melo-Martín, 2014). This is a problem for objectivity in science because every decision, good or bad, in the methodology of testing and creating a drug or intervention can be tainted with the commercial interest. Scientists lose objectivity because money or recognition is involved.Harding offers the feminist standpoint approach to this problem. The feminist standpoint for strong objectivity requires the following: 1. Knowledge is socially situated and comes from a standpoint; 2. The standpoints of oppressed groups often have epistemic privilege; 3. Scientists should be diverse and be committed to moral/political goal of eliminating oppression; 4. Scientists should study phenomena in ways that challenge oppression by beginning research from the perspective of oppressed groups.
In 1996, Purdue Pharma released an opioid Oxycontin with a campaign marketing the painkiller to doctors to prescribe to their patients. They claimed this pill was a higher dosage and longer lasting, which meant patients could take less of them because it was slowly released into their bloodstream. Purdue told the doctors this was most effective for pain and had no side effects and no potential for abuse or addiction. At this time, doctors were afraid to use opioids to treat pain because of the concern for addiction. Doctors soon began prescribing Oxycontin because they believed they were more effective with no side effects (McGreal, 2018).This is a prime example of profit-driven research.
The standpoint Purdue Pharma was coming from was making more money. There was already a pill, oxycodone, that helped manage pain and had a low abuse rate. The only reason they made this pill was because they wanted to make money off the consumers ("Purdue And The OxyContin Files.", 2018).In their budget plan for 1996 –2002, they have information such as how they were going to market it, who they were going to market it to, why they needed to market it at that moment, and more. It all comes down to money. How they are going to make money and keep the dope sick coming back for more. If we had applied rule one of feminist standpoint, there would have been no need for another opioid drug to come out onto the market because everyone would have known that they were doing it for the money due to the information they would have had to given out.
Purdue Pharma was not interested in the oppressed groups of people. They did not even take them into consideration except that they knew that they were more vulnerable to abuse the drugs, which increased their profits. Their only motive for creating and releasing this drug was to make money. Doctors did not need this new drug, they already had one that was doing just fine. Oxycontin was expensive. In an attempt to boost sales of Oxycontin, “Purdue Pharma created a co-pay savings program to allow more patients to have access to theirs drugs.” (Good, 2018).They did not care about the consumers being addicted to this medication. All they cared about was their drug selling to people, even people who could not afford them. If we had applied rule two of feminist standpoint, the drug would have never been out to the market. Oppressed groups can also include those that have a drug problem. If they were interested in the groups of oppressed people, they would not have even thought to release this drug. It was not in the interest of the people.
Purdue Pharma hired scientists to conduct studies to compare Oxycontin to Percocet and found that Oxycontin was most effective because of the 12-hour time release ("Purdue And The OxyContin Files”, 2018).They also found that there was a higher risk of abuse but did not disclose that to the doctors when marketing the drug. Scientists should be diverse and working to help eliminate oppression, this is only increasing it much more. The scientists that helped in this study claimed that this drug was ideal for long-term therapy treatment, even though they knew it was highly addictive. If we had applied rule three of feminist standpoint, the scientists would have never signed on to the campaign for Oxycontin. It would not have been beneficial morally or politically to have been involved with this campaign. The scientists would be interested in eliminating the oppression.
Purdue Pharma did not campaign this drug because they thought it would help oppressed groups of people. They campaigned this drug because they wanted to make a lot of money. Their standpoint came from the viewpoint of a company wanting to make a lot of money off hurt people. Their standpoint did not come from the viewpoint of an oppressed person. They never once asked people who would be using it if they wanted a stronger, longer-lasting drug. They just created this drug and pushed it onto doctors as a wonder cure-all drug. If we had applied rule four of feminist standpoint, they would have started from the oppressed groups and found out what they needed and helped to eliminate that oppression. Instead, they chose to not even include the oppressed group into any of their work.
An objection someone could have is how could objectivity have prevented the opioid crisis? My answer to that would be objectivity in research is what keeps research scientific instead of economic. Objectivity in the case of Purdue Pharma and Oxycontin could have prevented the opioid crisis because following the four rules of feminist standpoint would not have allowed for any of the things that happened happen. They would not have even been able to attempt to make the drug or to market it. They did not meet any of the four rules, someone would have caught that and shut it down. Having objectivity in research allows for medication or interventions to be made with out biases,such as money,get in the way.
I have argued that if we had had the four rules of Sandra Harding’s feminist standpoint, we could have avoided, and possibly prevented, the opioid crisis that started because of the 1996 Purdue Pharma campaign for Oxycontin. I hope I have persuasively shown that having objectivity in research is very crucial for successful research to be done and have no biases or conflicts of interest to taint information.
Works Cited
"Purdue And The OxyContin Files." Kaiser Health News. June 13, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://khn.org/news/purdue-and-the-oxycontin-files/.
Good, Jason. "Purdue Pharma Giving Out Coupons for Oxycontin." Narconon Suncoast. September 4, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://www.narconon-suncoast.org/blog/purdue-pharma-giving-out-coupons-for-oxycontin.html.
Intemann, K., and I. de Melo-Martín. 2014. “Addressing Problems in Profit-Driven Research: How Can Feminist Conceptions of Objectivity Help?” EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.shsu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbl&AN=RN353140909&site=eds-live&scope=site.
McGreal, Chris. "Rudy Giuliani Won Deal for OxyContin Maker to Continue Sales of Drug behind Opioid Deaths." The Guardian. May 22, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/22/rudy-giuliani-opioid-epidemic-oxycontin-purdue-pharma.
Comments