To be sure, those who contribute greatly to medical science should be compensated well…but how much is too much? At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?
All too often, it’s not the individual researchers who make most of the money on these things. If they work for a company, it’s the company and the investors who make the bulk of the money.[/quote]
“…but how much is too much?”
haha, your thievery is laid bare. That is a question you ask regarding lots of things huh? When can you take what someone else has because they have too much of it?
“At what point does the right of a company to profit (and the executives and investors there) trump the right of a human being to live?”
These two things do not have to be in conflict. I am sure many companies would love to sell FDA unapproved or off label prescriptions, but the governmentment has made it illegal to do such. And to bring drugs through the process costs billions of dollars (4 billion last I read). Let us reframe that last question…
“At what point does the general populaces desire for only and restricted to government sactioned medical products trump the right of a human being to live?”
To avoid the previous moral dilemma, you would prefer theft.[/quote]
Would these people “have what they have” if there were no patents? Who is immoral: the person who seeks to patent drugs and medical devices that can help people to live longer and better lives (keeping that science, and the benefits derived from it, from anyone else), or the people who desire to live longer and better lives, but can only afford to pay a certain amount?
Is the person/institution who seeks to “maximize profits” at the expense of the sick and needy a better person than the people/institutions who would be willing to produce the same medicines/technology and sell them at a lower price? Who is immoral?
And how do we compensate taxpayers/consumers for the billions of dollars that they pay toward the basic research from which most of these medicines and technologies are derived?
This debate is unique to the US. Seeing innovation as purely a product of financial motive is wrong-headed. It’s a bit like saying the betterment of society is profit driven. Being nice, therefore, always has an ulterior motive. There is evidence that the profit motive is detrimental to health, even within those institutions that purport to promote it. Apparently, invasive treatments using expensive equipment, that no doubt required much research, is justified because “it is there” and not for the preventive good it may do. In fact, it can often do more harm than good. Profit is profit. Health is health. The only good profit to come from health is the benefit it bestows and the satisfaction thus derived.
If you’ve ever worked for a Pharmaceutical company, you’d know that the only Pharmaceutical company that would with hold a cure for cancer is a Pharmaceutical company that doesn’t have a Sales/Marketing dept.
