I have always wondered about this hypothetical situation. Take a disease, like AIDS, that is expensive as hell to treat. Drug campanies are making lots and lots of money from the medication required for treatment. Now lets say that in the upper eschelons of a drug company, they figure out that it can be cured by eating the bark of an oak tree. Because they cannot figure out anyway to charge for that, they keep their findings secret.
Would they really do that? Is that ethical (after all it is capitalism at work)? Has something like that ever happened before?
I can’t believe you even asked that second question. Of course it’s not ethical, sit on their asses and let millions die slowly for their profit.
I don’t care if it is business. Businesspeople are as ethically praise- or blameworthy as anyone. They don’t step into some alternate dimension when they go to work. They don’t stop being society members. And dammit, if I found out something like this was going on, I’d probably do something drastic.
Well, no, I wouldn’t… I’d probably write a letter to the government. But it would be a really nasty letter! Full of profanity! Yeah!
…Ok, we’ve established that I shouldn’t post when high.
They aren’t “evil”. What they would do is isolate & then figure out how to make in the lab. (it would be purer, w/ a std dose, so they are performing some benefit). THEN they would sell it for $$$$$$
But what if they couldn’t purify it or standardize it? Just walking up to an oak tree and eating a piece of its bark is the cure. There would be no way to make money off it, and the scientists that discovered it have a large economic stake in the company. I also have issues with Matt’s comment about businessmen. I am sure that plenty of businesses have killed or allowed people to die for econimic benefits. Lord knows plenty of countries have done the same to create a “favorable economic climate”. So, have I found the flaw in capitalism?
Yes they do–they become a corporation.
The rules are different for a corporation–it is not in place to save people’s lives, it is not there to make society a better place, it is there to make money for its shareholders. Everything else is secondary to the corporation. As such, that drug company would say that while they regret the lives lost due to their failure to make this information known, they had a responsibility to their shareholders to keep it quiet.
And what do you do to a corporation that behaves unethically? Put it in jail? How? Put its board of directors in jail? Not bloody likely. Revoke its charter? Don’t count on it. You can only fine the corporation, an expense gladly passed on to the customer.
Of course, if we were dealing with an ideal free market, the consumers would simply not give their business to such a corporation. However, with such a rift between the top and the bottom, it’s hard to be an informed consumer on every choice you make. Also, this drug company might be the only one making this drug, so it’s their way or the highway.
Bottom line–in the long run, pure, unregulated capitalism works a little better than pure socialism, but not much.
Dr. J
“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera
Well unless they successfully squelch the story of the bark curing aids, and I mean squelch it completely, ultimately it will come back to bite them in the ass. Look at what happened when the Exxon Valdez spilled oil off Alaska, people boycotted Exxon products and Exxon was very affected.
Successfully squelching a story is not easy. Murder people and you got bodies. Bribe people and they come back to the well again sometime in the future for more. Even if they squelch the dissidents, eventually someone on the inside will turncoat to cover his ass and the story will get out. And there will be repercusions. That is the strength of capitalism. The protection against the greedy and uncompassionate is the secrets are hard to keep and anytime the truth is known, the affected can make a difference by boycott products.
Let’s See What’s Out There … Engage
The world’s loneliest doper.
all they would have to do is take the bark and sell it.
Seed corporattions sell genetically engineered seeds so you have to keep on buying from them. And lightbulb companys could make lights that last forever.
Lightbulb companies DO make longer-lasting lights. They charge more for them, but your long-run cost is lower, since you don’t need to replace the bulbs as often. Now, there is a quite a bit of consumer inertia that they have to overcome (“Ten dollars for a freakin’ lightbulb?”) because people don’t always do the math, but that’s not a good example of “evil corporations hiding advances from us.”
Now, if you’re talking about the pill that lets cars run on tap water, now we’re talking.
(Reverse-engineered from UFOs, dontcha know.)
As far as “greedy drug companies” go, without the profit motive, why should they go out of their way to develop cures and medicines that significantly improve one’s quality of life?
Sure, one might think that altruism would lead a person to do that, but not a corporation. And I think most charitable organizations don’t have nearly enough money to fund decades of research, testing and development of a drug.
For every drug that turns out to be effective and make it onto the market, how many do you think crap out, even after spending tons of money on them? I don’t know the answer but I would guess quite a lot.
So I don’t mind at all that drug companies make a profit. Someone has to pay for all those years of science and research. Remember, what may seem like an obscene profit for one medicine actually has to cover a lot things that go on behind the scenes.
I’m glad Eli Lilly et al. have some motivation for medicine development. Imagine what the state of health care would be if they did not.
“The rules are different for a corporation–it is not in place to save people’s lives, it is not there to make society a better place, it is there to make money for its shareholders.”
I’m wondering, are these things what people are here for? What should happen to an individual who discovers a cheap and easy cure for cancer, and doesn’t share it with the world. I would agree it would be unethical, but is it criminal?
I would like to see an example.
Speaking as a corporate dog whose job is to 'protect and increase corporate assets":
It costs a fortune to create name recognition. Bad press not only destroys earnings, the subsequent dip in earnings spawns numerous lawsuites against the Directors and Officers of the company.
I recently figured out the cost of bad national press coverage regarding our product and it would bankrupt us. Period. Even if a company is running at a 5% profit Margin, a 20% dip in cash flow will cause severe damage and probably sink us.
So even if we turn into Ferengi (sp?) as soon as we step in the office, we have an economic reason to act ethically. This is the beauty of the free market. It regulates itself. (But we are a bunch of good hearted family men for the most part.)
So it doesn’t have to be criminal to not report such a cure. The company would report the findings anyway or face the consequences.
The closest I’ve seen in real life to this kind of scenario is when an Australian researcher discovered the major cause of stomach ulcers a certain bacteria.
I think I could spell the name of it but why put myself up to be shot at?
Anyway ,the documentary about this chap implied that the reason that big drug companies did not have any interest in carrying out confirming research was that they were making lots of money out of drugs like Tagamel and that the cure used drugs that were well past the patent limitations.
Further to that it seems that these antacid drugs were near the end of their patent lives and when that happened then the real cure would be promoted more.
The treatment discovered by the Australian is now widely used and ,if I remember rightly, the bug he discovered has been implcated in stomach cancer.When the bug was treated some people with this cancer actually recovered.
I sometimes wonder about who promotes the benefits of prozac and the attention deficit disorder drugs.There must be huge profits in that business right, the way down to the GP.
You are talking about Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who discovered that ulcers were caused by the helicobacter pylori organism, which was at odds with the accepted medical knowledge of the time (1982), which said that stress was the main cause. Like any other drastic departure from the common knowledge, it’s acceptance in the medical community took time, but was pretty much the standard by the 1990’s, and is now considered a great discovery. I’m not sure who funded their research; I would like to have seen that documentary. I’ve never heard or seen it stated that drug companies were behind the initial reluctance of the medical community. That would be quite a conspiracy.
One thing I have painfully learned over the years is that since the 60s, American Business has changed. The simple, flat statement; the cold, hard explanation mouthed so often by firm faced, overconfident looking executives: 'it’s just business.
Yes, I believe that most major drug companies, at least the decision making body, have turned, if not ‘evil’ to profit oriented, ruthless selfishness where human lives no longer matter – unless for the potential of lawsuits.
The trend became obvious with Disney. So long as Walt Disney was alive, he kept prices low, believing in fun for all and you never heard of ‘Disney’ suing anyone unless it was real serious. Walt died. Disney became ‘Disney Inc.’ and a day care center was sued because they had painted Disney cartoons on their walls without getting permission or paying royalties.
The major drug companies discovered that Americans were using more drugs, no longer willing to suffer stoically with curable or controllable diseases as in the past. They spent millions on research – often getting government grants to help pay the costs – and introduced new drugs. The rule of thumb used to be that the initial introduction of the medication was high, but within a year, the cost would drop once the companies made back their expenses.
Someone decided ‘why kill the cow’ so long as major bucks were still flowing in? Medication prices then either dropped only minimally oor not at all. Then, the blind herd that is the general public started investing in drug companies, spotting the high profit pictures, which encouraged said companies to increase their prices.
Currently, drug companies are among the wealthiest businesses in the States. Most recoup their initial costs within 3 years of putting a new medication on sale. Viagra is not expensive to make, but since so many men are real concerned about the function of their wee willie’s, it is a guaranteed money maker. Made for under $0.20 a pill, it sells for $10.00 each! (I made an error in a previous post about the cost.)
Drug companies have grants to find cures for AIDS, but dying people desperately trying to find a way to live longer, or be free of misery as they die, or seeking a cure will gladly pay all they have for medication. The drug companies are making a fortune off of AIDS patients. At $100 a dosage for some AIDS drugs, the patients need at least 4 to 16 doses a month, which equals, at the maximum, $1600. Yearly, this comes to $19,200.
Now, multiply that by around a million patients, or more. MAJOR BUCKS from ‘captive’ users.
The rule of thumb, I learned, in retail business, is to increase the purchase price of an item by 100% to sell it. If the item sells very well, then increase it to what the market will bear. (CDs cost less to make than the old vinyl albums, but are sold at up to 3 times the vinyl cost because the public readily pays it.)
Businesses tend to remove themselves from human emotions. Business concerning profit and expansion becomes all. I’ve known many a fine person who I’ve had dealings with socially and enjoyed their company, and they would give you the shirt off of their backs – until they turned to ‘business’, then you had to buy the shirt. The more you needed it, the more it cost. If you also were in the business of selling shirts, they would deliberately bankrupt you to gain a higher share of the market, even though your kids played with theirs, you had each other over for meals and got drunk together.
JUST BUSINESS.
The most evil phrase currently in the world today.
I examined the new Excedrine Migraine pain reliever, that sells for several dollars more than the Excedrine Extra Strength pills, for the same amount of tablets. The only difference between the two is that the migraine pills are coated with a wax to retard digestion – which means they’ll dissolve mainly in the intestines and more of the basic medication will survive the destructive effects of the stomach acid. PLUS, many migraine sufferers tend to get upset stomachs, so the wax will keep the medication from churning things up there.
The result? Each 100 tablets gets a tumbled on coating of something like canuba or beeswax, probably costing a whole $0.05 per bottle. The coated tablets sell for $3 to $5 more than the uncoated.
I tell migraine sufferers to take 2, 500 mgm EXCEDRINE tablets with a drink of milk or chase them with a Rolaids tablet. It does about the same thing as the wax and saves them several dollars.
Profit, people, profit! Profit is all. Profit is power!
Antidepressants are now big business, especially those which not only work well, but have few side affects and can be used to treat multiple symptoms. If people want to feel better, they’ll pay for it!
Not all that long ago, one of the major drug companies – I forgot which one – was involved in attempting to set up a price control scheme to keep the price of some drugs higher than normal. The government stopped them and made them pay a fine.
Years ago, most drug companies were started by the owners, who were in the drug field, saw potential in making drugs or whatever, and most felt they were not just doing good business, but providing a necessary service at a reasonable price.
These people are gone. CEO’s, with enormous perks, and boards of directors – interested only in their dividends --and power hungry executives have taken over. They don’t actually care about the people using the medications. They want profit – and there is never enough of that.
Suffering is big business.
Nothing personal, it’s only business.
I’m reminded of a passage in Michael Crichton’s novel “Jurassic Park.” Rich mogul Hammond has spent billions of dollars on Cray supercomputers, and the world’s most brilliant geneticists and microbiologists, all to produce dinosaurs for a theme park!
Someone wonders aloud, “Imagine if all this money and all these resources had been devoted to curing cancer or AIDS or something!”
Hammond answers, essentially, “That’s a good question. I’ll tell you EXACTLY why I don’t do that. Suppose I devoted billions of dollars to cancer research, and eventually discovered a miracle cure. I then go on TV and announce, I’ve got a drug here to cure cancer- all cancer patients line up for my miracle drug, only $50,000 a shot.”
“If I did that, would anyone praise me? Would anyone be grateful to me? On the contrary, they’d scream bloody murder! They’d call me a heartless fiend, gouging the sick. They’d say $50,000 is way too much money, and before long, the government would step in and tell me EXACTLY how much I could charge. My profits would be minimal, because in the modern economy… ironically, the more people need something, the more they feel entitled to it, and the less they’re willing to pay.”
“On the other hand, nobody NEEDS to go to a theme park and no one NEEDS to see dinosaurs. It’s a luxury, which means I can charge ANY insane price I like, and people will gladly pay it, and no one will object if I make obscene profits.”
This passage comes to mind in any discussion of drug prices. Drug companies make big profits by discovering and inventing useful products. But precisely BECAUSE these products are so good and so useful, people resent drug companies for making a large profit! (You bastards- I NEED that drug to stay alive, so you have no business charging me a lot of money for it!")
On the other hand, if there weren’t big profits involved, so you REALLY think anyone would be hard at work looking for effective new drugs? Guess again!
I think the economics of research have been made pretty clear over the years.
AIDs cure if invented will be way too expensive for the nations that need them the most.
The big 3rd world killers are still the unglamorous diseases and parasites but the money invested into research is far less because the returns will not be there.
How does one raise the money for this work if the drug companies can’t?
Their shareholders are you and I and I doubt you would want to take a reduced pension because of it.
The quality of life drugs such as prozac and viagra are not major medical issues in the same way that ,say, anti-biotics are but that is where the money is.
How did our parents ever manage to cope without them?
Maybe we have created such a hideous world that we actually need stuff like this, seems to me we might benefit by taking time out for a rethink.
Employment is high ,wages relatively so, lifespans are longer and healthier yet still we need happy pills which the drug companies are only too willing to sell us.
If I may draw a parallel…
As a physician (to-be), I am required by law to at least see and stabilize anyone in a life-threatening situation, even if they cannot pay me one dime. I don’t have to provide any sort of non-emergent or long-term care, and “stabilization” might just be enough to get them to the hospital. Bottom line, I can’t let someone die just because they can’t pay me.
This is in spite of the fact that I have spent many years of my life and upwards of $150,000 in training to be a physician.
On the other hand, let’s say someone has a life-threatening illness that is curable only by a single drug, which is patented by DrugCorp, Inc. and costs upwards of $1000 a dose. He does not have any money whatsoever. To my knowledge, the drug company is not at all required to provide the drug. (In reality, a state agency would probably help the person pay for the drug, but this is a hypothetical.)
How do the situations differ?
Dr. J
Should a company discover that oak trees cure AIDS or something like that, they would probably quietly buy interest in logging firms and then score an enormous PR coup by announcing their results.
This question reminds me of a similar opinion voiced by one curmudgeon I know who thinks everything’s a conspiracy. He doesn’t believe in organizations like the American Cancer Society because he is convinced that they already know an easy way to cure cancer but won’t because it will put them all out of work. So they spend their time coming up with expensive and dubious treatments to keep themselves salaried.
“I know Darth Vader’s really got you annoyed,
But remember if you kill him then you’ll be unemployed.”- Weird Al, “Yoda”
Some of the attitudes expressed in this thread are common to those who like to criticize, but never (themselves) use logic or common reasoning skills. These attitudes are common to people like Ralph Nader (the evil car companies), Greenpeace (the evil nuclear power companies), and other such nutbag groups. Drug companies are in business TO MAKE A PROFIT!-simple -isn’t it? Drug companies that fail to earn profits go out of business. Developing new drugs is a HUGELY costly business-in no small part because of the legal industry (which is constantly looking for ways to extort money from the drug companies). I used to own stock in a pharmaceutical company-they went bankrupt paying for the FDA approvals!-itliterally takes years to get a new drug tested and approved!
One curious fact-the old Soviet Union had large numbers of medical scientists, and excellent research labs-yet they NEVER came up with a single imp[ortant drug! I guess the profit principal just MIGHT have something to to with this?
I agree entirely with you EGKelly, Dr. J, et al. For all of these people that bitch about how evil greed is, none of them can seem to get of their protesting-asses, go through med school, earn a Ph.D. in biological chemistry, a M.S. in viroligy, and then go find the cure for AIDS. That is true selflessness and right now, not that many people willing to give a few days of their year to protest greed are willing to do themselves whatever they want others to do for them.