Trevor Project Ousts CEO Who Played A Role In The Opioid Crisis

Not to defend the choice, but I suppose picking Wall Street-adjacent people makes it easier for groups to obtain funding?

NGOs are an ecosystem of repulsive cunts.

The bigger the Bible the bigger the sin.

[...]

Yes, r1, but sadly I suspect that becomes the whole point after awhile. Whatever the cause starts out, fundraising for the cause becomes the ultimate point of the whole organization, far too often.

Of course, it's not the junkie addicts fault they're popping pills because, you know, they're such upstanding middle class white folks, not like those nasty minorities who the CIA targeted for crack to fund their operations.

How pharmacies got sued over just filling prescriptions for legally prescribed drugs boggles me. But, the actual doctors doing the prescribing and failing in their duty to safeguard the health of their patients appear to have gotten off scott free.

Because no one from Big Pharma ever got hired anywhere else *rolls eyes*

[...]

Having spent years in that world of white shoe consulting firms, I will say that McK went too far:

[quote]And in a 2017 slide presentation for Purdue, McKinsey laid out several options to shore up sales. One was to give distributors a rebate for every OxyContin overdose attributable to pills they sold. The slides are notable for their granular detail. For example, McKinsey estimated that 2,484 CVS customers would overdose or develop an opioid use disorder in 2019 from taking OxyContin. CVS said the plan was never implemented.

It's one thing to do analysis and recommendations. However, when those recommendations actually take into consideration and factor in illegal activity AND death, you cross the line, whether those recommendations were ever implemented or not.

That absolute nail in the coffin for McK would be if they ever did any analysis for clients or themselves on whether the profits would exceed any potential litigation.

Normally, I fully subscribe to the idea that the firm only makes "recommendations" and is not responsible for implementation, and more importantly, errors in implementation (unless the consulting firmis responsible and has full decision making authority). However, that's when those recommendations do not explicitly assume illegal activity or known dangers which are being hidden. It's like telling a chemical company looking to improve profits that it would be cheaper to dump chemicals to reduce expenses associated with proper disposal.

If this guy was actually a senior person on the team, his ethics are highly questionable, and he should be ousted.

McKinsey didn't just consult for Purdue. They were also consulting for the FDA, while the agency was reviewing OxyContin, as well as CVS and Walgreens. They were all up and down the distribution chain for that drug. McKinsey and its minions can go to hell.

Sounds like "be shitty but stay within the letter of the law" r8. Is that the intention there?

He's cute tho.

The FDA said oxy was a-ok!

What’s Paley’s background? Amit is an Indian name but he doesn’t look indian

[quote]Sounds like "be shitty but stay within the letter of the law" [R8]. Is that the intention there?

I'm not sure what you mean.

However, setting aside whatever specific mandate the study might have, the priority is always increasing shareholder value, usually by improved operating performance which should lead to either long-term, sustainable profitability or reduced/lowered losses.

Things like employee satisfaction/moral, public image, regulatory scrutiny, legislation, customer satisfaction are all quantifiable in that you can put upper or lower bands on outcomes and identify some notion of "breakeven," min/max payback period, or improvement that is necessary in order to make a course of action make rational sense.

The "letter of the law" is merely a constraint that needs to be included. You cannot do X because it's illegal. Of course, there are some ethical considerations to all decisions. Whether they are illegal or not. But, what you don't want is for individuals to insert their own view of ethics into a decision as that would lead to chaos. You want people within companies to adhere to a broader agreed standard.

Obviously, Enron and Worldcom had a fundamentally different view of ethics than what the rest of us would deem acceptable and have not survived.

But, "be shitty but stay within the letter of the law" is much too simplistic to be meaningful or have any real value.

Is Amit a known homosexual?

R7 "They literally"

Good grief.