Question: Ethical Conduct. Ernest Price suffered from sickle cell anemia. In 1997, Price asked Dr. Ann Houston, his physician, to prescribe Oxycontin, a strong narcotic, for pain. Over the next several years, Price saw at least ten different physicians at ten different clinics in two cities, and used seven pharmacies in three cities, to obtain and fill simultaneous prescriptions for Oxycontin. In March 2001, when Houston learned of these activities, she refused to write more prescriptions for Price. As other physicians became aware of Price's actions, they also stopped writing his prescriptions.
Price filed a suit in a Mississippi state court against Purdue Pharma Co. and other producers and distributors of Oxycontin, as well as his physicians and the pharmacies that had filled the prescriptions. Price alleged negligence, among other things, claiming that Oxycontin's addictive nature caused him injury and that this was the defendants' fault. The defendants argued that Price's claim should be dismissed because it arose from his own wrongdoing. Who should be held legally liable? Should any of the parties be considered ethically responsible? Why or why not? [Price v. Purdue Pharma Co., __ So.2d __ (Miss. 2006)].