Opioids and a failure to declare competing interestsBMJ 2019; 366 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5321 (Published 29 August 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;366:l5321
- Juliet Dobson, digital content editor
- The BMJ
Follow Juliet on Twitter @Juliet_hd
Regular readers of The BMJ will have noticed that we published no print issue this week. Many of you will have been on holiday and, if you’re lucky, switched off from medical reading for a week or two. So we are using this opportunity to highlight some recent online articles that you may have missed.
On 26 August, a judge in Oklahoma ordered the drug company Johnson and Johnson to pay the state $572m (£467m; €516m) for its role in the state’s opioid crisis (doi:10.1136/bmj.l5319). This is the first time that a company has been ordered by a US court to pay out over its involvement in the opioid epidemic. The judge ruled that Johnson and Johnson’s marketing campaigns were “false and dangerous,” and had resulted in “increasing rates of addiction [and] overdose deaths” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2019/aug/26/johnson-johnson-opioid-ruling-explained-the-key-points). Johnson and Johnson intends to appeal. But this case could set a precedent in thousands of other opioid related lawsuits …