Deaths from opioid overdose have been on the rise every year since the beginning of the crisis in the 1990s. More than 130 people die every day from an opioid-related drug overdose. While the opioid crisis can’t be pinned on one person or company, Purdue Pharma, created by the Sackler family, is a big reason for the sudden increase in drug overdoses. Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sackler were the founding members of Purdue Pharma. All three were medical school graduates and started working together in New York. They bought a small pharmaceutical company, Purdue, and started to run it together. Raymond’s son, Richard, was the marketing mastermind who turned OxyContin into the monster drug that is known today. What did the Sackler family spend their fortune on from exploiting vulnerable individuals? Art museums.
Opioids, while having a long history, were, in the 1950s, targeted towards cancer patients who only had a few weeks left to live. At this point in history, opioids were frowned upon and not thought to have any other use. By the 1990s, however, people’s feelings on opioids began to shift. Purdue started to change their marketing and target people with chronic pain instead of just cancer patients. In 1993, Purdue conducted a clinical trial in elderly patients with osteoarthritis to test the safety of OxyContin. And while there were 133 enrolled patients, only 63 actually completed the trial. On top of that, of the 63, 82% of the patients came away with some sort of adverse event related to the treatment. Even with all of this, Purdue concluded that the study was successful and OxyContin was safe for the use of helping chronic pain.
In 1994, Michael Friedman, the sales and marketing executive of Purdue, outlined a new marketing strategy that would target chronic non-malignant pain patients. The goal was to get as many physicians to feel comfortable prescribing OxyContin regularly as possible. The plan implemented by Purdue was to market OxyContin as a less addictive version of opioids. And it worked for a while, blowing out the opioid market and filling the pockets of the Sackler family.
While the Sackler family has been reaping the benefits of the success of Purdue and OxyContin, the negative implications have started to catch up to them. For over five decades, the Sackler family have been donating to various museums worldwide, enough to get wings and galleries named after them. The Smithsonian has the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a Sackler Wing, and the Louvre has a Sackler wing too, to name a few. Recently, legal allegations against the Sackler family has caused museums to cancel donations from the Sackler family and reassess the relationship it has with their donors. In 2007, three of the executives from Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to misleading doctors and falsely advertising OxyContin’s possibility for abuse, as well as pushing the drug on those who didn’t necessarily need it. The art institutions denying the donations from the Sackler family don’t want to be associated with the opioid crisis or the legacy they’ve left behind.
With that decision, the institutions are considering losing millions of dollars in donations. The question of what to do with the unethically acquired money has also been asked, and if removing the Sackler name from the institutions is the right decision. In the Smithsonian, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery is there to stay. Arthur had passed away before OxyContin ever hit the market and never profited off of the false marketing. There is no easy answer to what will happen with art institutions and their decisions regarding Sackler donations. When looking at other billions who choose to donate to museums, is their money 100 percent clean? The question to ask is, where do you draw the line?
Related posts:
The Destruction of Child Actors
Drugs in Music by Shane Hunter
The Entertainment of Exploitation
Hobby Lobby Held Accountable for Art Trafficking, But Not The British Museum
“Rap Snitches”: Is rapping about crime a confession?
Drug addiction through the lens of Rue Bennette
Drugs and EDM: An Intimate Relationship
Powered by YARPP.
I have previously heard about the opioid crisis as any other living person today has but I was not aware that it can be traced back to a single family and that that family has wings in many well known museums. As someone studying to work in the healthcare industry, we are warned about prescribing benzodiazepines, oxycontin, and other opioids due to their extremely addictive nature. It was hard to hear that Purdue Pharmaceuticals changed their marketing strategy to target patients with chronic pain, not just cancer patients, knowing the addictive side effects and aversive life events it can cause. I think that the question on if these museums should deny donations and change wing names is ambiguous as it raises the problem of checking every donor for potential crimes and unethical behavior. I think donating to museums is important, especially if you have enough money to do so, and I do not think that this family should be honored through these museums but I also think it is unfair for these museums to not get money they need because people are corrupt. I am leaning towards the side of these museums changing the names of their wings and no longer accepting donations from this family but there is no clear cut answer of how this situation should be handled. I think this case should be learned from and museums should put more effort into making sure the people they are naming wings after are good people and not causing problems for all of humanity.