We Made New Cancer Drug For Rich White People Not (Ick) Poor Indian People, Pharma Giant CEO Actuall

Kandinsky
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Sorry, you can't tell someone they made enough money so now you are going to steal their product. It's theft. It's either theirs or it isn't. If it is, this is theft. If it isn't, then every country should just steal their products. Or is it just ok for India to do this, and no one else can? Why do some countries get to steal and some don't?

Your first points are accurate; you can't tell someone they've made enough profit or that it isn't their product any more.

However, there's a wider ethical question that isn't limited to simple property rights. I remember the Heinz Dilemma (ethics of stealing medicine) from university. It describes levels of moral development using the idea of a man seeking medicine to keep his wife alive. He can't afford the medicine and eventually steals it.

Morally, the Indians feels justified in producing medicines that save members of their population. Morally, they'd feel it was wrong to accept suffering and/or death if the obstacle was the profit-margin of a corporate entity.

The reasons why these contexts are described as 'dilemmas' is because they aren't as easy to dictate as you are trying to claim. 'Big Pharma' would have no incentive to produce life-saving medicines if they couldn't reap huge profits. Likewise you wouldn't enjoy watching a loved one suffer or die because you were born in a deprived area and couldn't afford (or access) the medicines.

Thank you for bringing up this 'teaching' delemma. I couldn't remember the name nor felt able to present it without backup.

I love people who do their homework. They set a good example and a higher standard for me.

reply to post by ketsuko


Mercedes didn't invent the airbag. I've no idea where he got that notion.

OccamsRazor04

The reasons why these contexts are described as 'dilemmas' is because they aren't as easy to dictate as you are trying to claim. 'Big Pharma' would have no incentive to produce life-saving medicines if they couldn't reap huge profits. Likewise you wouldn't enjoy watching a loved one suffer or die because you were born in a deprived area and couldn't afford (or access) the medicines.
Yes, and the dilemna isn't about a right or wrong answer, it's about how you answer, not what.

No moral dilemmas are difficult but they do reflect dilemmas individuals and groups are presented with often.

And ones choice reflects ones moral maturity.

raymundoko
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Mercedes didn't invent the airbag. I've no idea where he got that notion.

That was my supposition - and I stated that I didn't remember all the facts (including manufactuer - maybe it was volvo). I was giving an example of an instance of human well-being being put ahead of profit by a company.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Wow. Nothing like not using the search feature before posting a new thread is there?

There is another thread on this same topic, started a week before this one! www.abovetopsecret.com...

OccamsRazor04

daskakik
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Please don't put words in my mouth and India isn't stealing it.

India admits they are stealing it.

Source please? It seems that daskakik did the research and the Indian company that is producing the generic equivalent is paying Bayer a 6% licensing fee - hardly sounds like stealing to me.

reply to post by charles1952




Of course we have morals as a society....otherwise civilization would not work.


Let's just bring this down to what I see as the crux of the matter.

Profit vs People.

Your argument suggests that you believe that healthcare should only be available to those with the resources to access it...ie...money. With more and more of our resources being funnelled to a priveledged few, that means there are less resources for everyone else to share among themselves. Ergo....healthcare will only be accessible to those with the means to get it. Which means that the majority of the human race will suffer and die....so that those profit margins can be met. Otherwise....what's the point of developing life saving drugs?

Correct me if I am wrong....

OpinionatedB
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Wow. Nothing like not using the search feature before posting a new thread is there?

There is another thread on this same topic, started a week before this one! www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Thank you for pointing that out. I'm encouraged that someone else thought the piece of interest.

The search feature here is

reply to post by FyreByrd


When using the search feature, the less words the better. Always use only the key words, and do it more than one way, in order to get the best results.

I just now typed in "Bayer Indians" into the search feature and both threads came up.

deadcalm
reply to post by charles1952

 

Of course we have morals as a society....otherwise civilization would not work.


Let's just bring this down to what I see as the crux of the matter.

Profit vs People.

Your argument suggests that you believe that healthcare should only be available to those with the resources to access it...ie...money. With more and more of our resources being funnelled to a priveledged few, that means there are less resources for everyone else to share among themselves. Ergo....healthcare will only be accessible to those with the means to get it. Which means that the majority of the human race will suffer and die....so that those profit margins can be met. Otherwise....what's the point of developing life saving drugs?

Correct me if I am wrong....

You're wrong. If this keeps happening Big Pharma will stop researching drugs as they can't make a profit from it, and way MORE people will die. Even if they did the noble thing and handed over the drugs for free, they'd run out of money for research in a couple of years and go bankrupt. No more new drugs

It's not pretty, but it's how it works. What the Indian govt should have done is cut a deal with Bayer to give them a decent payment for the rights and fix the packaging so it can't be used outside of India.

reply to post by deadcalm


There is the reverse side to this Profit v. People argument.

What about all the people who work at the pharma and rely on it to make a living? Do they not deserve to get paid for their hard work and effort? And what about all the businesses that rely on pharma for their own living? Heck, I had a potential job in the works that would have been working for a company whose business was simply helping companies get through the FDA approval process. That ought to give you even more idea how expensive it is and how difficult - an entire company based around that alone ...

Because I'll tell you honestly, from the perspective of people in R & D, they love to work on the more obscure and difficult diseases like cancer because they are the biggest challenges. The other thing they love to do is go back to older product and work at improving it to make it better product. However, their desires have to be balanced against what the monetary balance sheet can support financially.

And I can tell you that things are tight because it takes a lot of money to bring anything to market, and any failure is a total lose of investment, and there are far more failures than there are successes. Every drug that makes it has to cover for all of that. Drug companies actually love drugs like Viagra that are very wide application with large markets because they can be priced cheaper. Do you actually think they like being accused of greed and pricing things sky high?

reply to post by Antigod


I agree with you here. Quite a bit actually. As Fatherstacks said in the other thread:

For a company to bring a new drug to market, it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of about $5-10 billion. One huge reason is the extensive testing and research needed to persuade the FDA to allow its use in patients. The drawback is pharma companies are for-profit entities, and to recoup their investment, the costs of new medications is exorbitant.

To which I added:

It has been traditionally 20 years of a drugs availability before other countries get to have the generic. I understand why they do what they do, and I understand it is about research and profit for that research.. I give them that.

People in India or other countries have been without these drugs forever. What is wrong with waiting another 20 years? If they don't, and the research cannot be paid for because a generic hits the market too soon, why would companies like Bayer even bother?

I say its wrong of people in India, not the drug companies. If the drug companies stop doing the research because they would loose money on it, then the problem wont be someone being born 20 years to soon to be saved, but that no one will be saved.

If these companies cannot recoup their multi billion dollar investment then making new drugs is not worth anyones time. I prefer it to be worth someone's time.

Then perhaps someday a 23 year old wont die of cancer, she wont be my daughter, but she will be someone's. But this will only happen if it is worth someone's time and investments.

Do you actually think they like being accused of greed and pricing things sky high?

reply to post by ketsuko



I honestly don't think they care....to paraphrase the CEO...they make these drugs for people who can afford them. The rest can suffer. Of course he didn't say that, however it's implied. A corporation exists to benefit it's share holders. Period. They aren't in the business of giving things away.

So, basically you just doubled down on your argument. Profit trumps people. If 100,000 people, hell if a million have to die until the patent expires, then those are acceptible losses in order to have the time to recoup their expenditures.

Profit over people. Pay up....or die in agony. I have had a personal experience with cancer, and thankfully I could afford the treatment that saved my life....but while in treatment I saw the way it ravages, bodies....minds and spirits. What it does to the families. I would wish that on no-one.

So when is a life worth more than a piece of paper?

But this will only happen if it is worth someone's time and investments.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


Is a human life not worth it? Is the chance to see a child grow to it's potential not worth the reasearch?

Profit before people....our civilization is doomed.

ketsuko
This is probably because after spending all the millions/billions it costs to develop the drug, places like India and Australia have laws on the books that will allow them to simply strip a drug's patents and open it immediately to generic production if they deem the finished costs too expensive.

In just the US there are about 31,000 new cases of liver cancer per year and 65,000 cases of kidney cancer. I don't know how long the medicine is taken but lets say treatment lasts 1 year, I suspect it's actually a multiyear treatment for those that survive. It now costs 5 billion to create a new drug. During a 7 year patent (assume the first 13 years were used in testing) their break even point is $7440.47/person (5,000,000,000/7/96,000).

Charging $96,000 for this drug is way overkill. Opening the drug up to additional countries further lowers the price. Infact, if they sought to recoup costs after just 1 year it would only cost $52,083/person. Sure, the companies are entitled to profit on their products that's what motivates them to make more... every extra dollar of profit though is another dead person that couldn't pay the higher price. Just how much profit should they get?

The medical system is a joke. Perhaps if creating better drugs and researching treatments and cures received as much grant money as weapons developers receive we would not have this dilemma.

One thing to consider about big pharma is more money is spent on R&D for products that stop male baldness and erection pills than on drugs that could possibly cure cancer and HIV/AIDS. It is a sadistic business practice.

reply to post by deadcalm


I am certain in your little utopian society everything is free. But in the one I live in, nothing is free. 20 years is all the drug companies ask of humanity before a generic comes into play.

20 #ing years.

Really, I don't think it's too much to ask. 20 years. Seriously the, "I want everything now and on my terms" crap has got to end. This has turned into a culture of spoiled little brats I swear.

You cannot have everything today. And there are things in this world worth waiting for... most things that are worth it are also worth waiting for.

In trying to speed things up in the process, you are certain to break it permanently.


If you people are positive you can do better, then get off your behinds and do it. Do all the R&D, develop all these new medicines, do it all... Find the cures, having it be your time, intelligence and your monetary investment.

I am pretty sure we will all die waiting for that to happen.

reply to post by FyreByrd


Actually car companies fought to NOT have airbags. They were forced to equip them just like seat belts.

reply to post by deadcalm


Really? It's implied???

OpinionatedB
I am certain in your little utopian society everything is free. But in the one I live in, nothing is free. 20 years is all the drug companies ask of humanity before a generic comes into play.

20 #ing years.

Really, I don't think it's too much to ask. 20 years. Seriously the, "I want everything now and on my terms" crap has got to end. This has turned into a culture of spoiled little brats I swear.

Here's my question to you. What should their profit margin during those 20 years be? We've already established that they can meet the break even price while asking far less money ($7500 vs $96,000). As it currently stands, about 92% of the price is pure profit. Is it fair to make a medication that exclusive? I'm pretty sure they would stay in the business of developing drugs at a considerably lower profit margin. Should they be allowed to charge "whatever the market will bear" even though that leads to thousands upon thousands of slow agonizing deaths during those 20 years?