-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Federal judge sides with 3 major drug distributors in a landmark1 opioid lawsuit2
In the West Virginia case, the federal judge ruled that three drug distributors are not responsible for paying to clean up the addiction4 crisis. It's a major victory for the drug industry.
LEILA FADEL, HOST:
In a landmark opioid case in West Virginia, a federal judge ruled that three major drug distributors are not responsible for funding the treatment programs for the addiction crisis.
A MARTINEZ, HOST:
It's a major victory for the drug industry, and it's a setback5 to local officials who say corporations flooded their community with highly addictive6 pain pills.
FADEL: NPR's addiction correspondent, Brian Mann, has been following this case. Hi, Brian.
BRIAN MANN, BYLINE7: Hi, Leila.
FADEL: So, Brian, remind us what these companies were accused of doing and what local governments were asking for.
MANN: So this lawsuit involved Cabell County and the city of Huntington in West Virginia. These are places absolutely devastated8 by the opioid crisis. I've actually spent time there, Leila, over the last couple of years and seen the high rates of addiction and overdose, whole families and neighborhoods really ravaged9. And government officials tried to make the case that these big drug distributors, AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal10 Health and McKesson, kept sending more and more of these highly addictive pain pills to pharmacies11 there long after it was clear there was this deadly crisis. Communities also presented evidence suggesting the companies didn't put enough safeguards in place to stop suspicious orders of opioids. Attorneys for the communities arguing, in effect, these companies contributed to the opioid crisis, so they should have to pay billions of dollars to help clean it up.
FADEL: Now, there was no jury in this trial. It was decided12 by a judge. What did he say?
MANN: Yeah. So federal Judge David Faber heard this case almost a year ago and finally issued his ruling yesterday on the holiday, Fourth of July. And he acknowledged these communities have been hit hard by opioids. But then he flatly rejected their legal arguments. He said they failed to prove any specific acts by these companies caused the oversupply13 of opioids. He points out doctors wrote prescriptions15 for these pills. And Judge Faber also says there wasn't clear evidence that negligence16 by the companies allowed opioid pills to wind up on the black market. And I want to read from the ruling here. While there is a natural tendency to assign blame in such cases, Faber writes, they must be decided based not on sympathy but on the facts and the law. So, Leila, that means these companies won't pay anything.
FADEL: So they won't pay. What happens to these communities?
MANN: It's going to be hard. The opioid crisis has gotten worse over the last couple of years, 107,000 overdose deaths nationwide last year alone. A lot of people have been switching from prescription14 pain pills to heroin17 and then fentanyl, which means more overdoses and deaths. So these communities don't have the money to pay for all the addiction services and health care and foster care and other programs that might help. The mayor of Huntington, Steve Williams, said in a statement late yesterday that this decision is a blow to his city. And he again claimed that these companies - and I'm quoting here - "are part of a powerful industry responsible for fueling the epidemic18."
FADEL: Now, you've described this as a landmark case. What will this ruling mean in other opioid cases across the country?
MANN: Yeah, AmerisourceBergen issued a statement yesterday praising the decision. And it is clearly a huge victory for the drug industry. There are thousands of opioid lawsuits19 underway - right now, another one slated20 to get underway in West Virginia this morning. This trial in federal court was what's known as a bellwether21 test case. So the outcome is a blow to communities all over the U.S. that have been trying to use similar legal arguments to the ones used by Huntington and Cabell County. What we've seen here, Leila, in this decision is that proving patterns of wrongdoing by Big Pharma, holding companies accountable - it's extremely hard to do.
FADEL: NPR's Brian Mann, thank you so much.
MANN: Thank you.
1 landmark | |
n.陆标,划时代的事,地界标 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 lawsuit | |
n.诉讼,控诉 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 addiction | |
n.上瘾入迷,嗜好 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 setback | |
n.退步,挫折,挫败 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 addictive | |
adj.(吸毒等)使成瘾的,成为习惯的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 byline | |
n.署名;v.署名 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 devastated | |
v.彻底破坏( devastate的过去式和过去分词);摧毁;毁灭;在感情上(精神上、财务上等)压垮adj.毁坏的;极为震惊的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 ravaged | |
毁坏( ravage的过去式和过去分词 ); 蹂躏; 劫掠; 抢劫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 cardinal | |
n.(天主教的)红衣主教;adj.首要的,基本的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 pharmacies | |
药店 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 oversupply | |
n.供应过量;v.过度供给 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 prescription | |
n.处方,开药;指示,规定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 prescriptions | |
药( prescription的名词复数 ); 处方; 开处方; 计划 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 negligence | |
n.疏忽,玩忽,粗心大意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 heroin | |
n.海洛因 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 epidemic | |
n.流行病;盛行;adj.流行性的,流传极广的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 lawsuits | |
n.诉讼( lawsuit的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 slated | |
用石板瓦盖( slate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 bellwether | |
n.系铃的公羊,前导,领导者,群众的首领 | |
参考例句: |
|
|