Would it be legal for a pharmaceutical co. to withhold a cancer cure?

[Chronos]

When Gleevec was first introduced, its side effects were thought mild to moderate by oncologists. But oncologists have a different idea of what serious side effects are, since they’re used to those of traditional chemotherapy.

And the reason that the side effects of traditional chemotherapy, horrible as they are, are tolerated is because cancer is even worse. I mean, seriously, cancer sucks.

[Leo_Bloom]

@BigT

Well, yeah. There is a greater public interest in curing diseases than letting people make money off their creations. Now, if the pharmaceutical companies cooperate, we can do both. But, if not, then they shouldn’t be allowed to make medicine, period. I’m sure there will be someone else who would be glad to play along…

Who do you mean “we,” Kemosabe? “They,” (the pharmaceutical companies and their supporters, or supporters of the current economic system) are not part of the BigT social contract, as suggested here, where the “we” and the glad"someone else’s" decide.

I may suggest that “we,” non-MDs, enact laws that MDs work mandatory 18 hour days at government set prices, because I think there’s a “greaterpublic interest in curing diseases than letting people make money off of their creations.”

Hell, maybe we (“we”) should apply the same to selected Ph.D’s and Universities.

[Declanium]

I could totally see this happening. Suppressing the cure because the treatment drugs are lucrstive for the pharma companies.
Much like the endodontists -
Root canals are linked to cancer and other diseases, and the ADA knows it, but will not acknowledge. Why? Because it would put endos out of business. Lot of money there. And also, once the public is aware, there would be a glut of panicked people looking to have their toxic teeth extracted, which would drive up health insurance rates.

[Declanium]

It’s all about the money.

[nearwildheaven]

@Declanium

I could totally see this happening. Suppressing the cure because the treatment drugs are lucrstive for the pharma companies.
Much like the endodontists -
Root canals are linked to cancer and other diseases, and the ADA knows it, but will not acknowledge. Why? Because it would put endos out of business. Lot of money there. And also, once the public is aware, there would be a glut of panicked people looking to have their toxic teeth extracted, which would drive up health insurance rates.

A root canal saved my life when I was much younger. I was sick for months and nobody could figure out why, until a pimple popped up on my gumline, and taking care of that restored me to health.

[Jackmannii]

@Declanium

I could totally see this happening. Suppressing the cure because the treatment drugs are lucrstive for the pharma companies.
Much like the endodontists -
Root canals are linked to cancer and other diseases, and the ADA knows it, but will not acknowledge. Why? Because it would put endos out of business. Lot of money there. And also, once the public is aware, there would be a glut of panicked people looking to have their toxic teeth extracted, which would drive up health insurance rates.

Or, the Evil Dentists could make shitpiles of money extracting “toxic teeth”* and putting in implants which contain toxic metals/chemicals, which further sicken the sheeple, requiring ever more dental and medical procedures, lots of drugs etc. etc.

Sounds like a plan!

*already a successful business model for Holistic Mercury-Safe Dentists.

[Fiendish_Astronaut]

Okay I chose a bad example in my OP, and perhaps diabetes might have been a better one and anyway I accept the fundamental point about it probably not being profitable or practical to withhold the treatment. But it’s been interesting to read and learn more about drug R&D.

I was inspired to ask by a Family Guy plot so you’ve basically all been very seriously debating the issues raised by that episode. I find this fact most amusing

[Horatius]

@Tired_and_Cranky

Once you’ve patented it, you’ve publicized the secret and lost a lot of control of how the information is used. If you refuse to produce the cure for cancer, there are plenty of labs in countries with less respect for intellectual property rights that will produce plenty of it in your stead. I’d imagine that China and Russia would become great medical tourism destinations. Of course, the impeccable border control of the U.S. would mean that no illegally imported drugs would ever make it into the country.

And in fact, in Canada, such a refusal to allow anyone to legally license the patent is considered patent abuse, and the competitors could petition the patent office to issue a license for a reasonable royalty rate:

Paragraphs 65(2)(c) to (f) of the Patent Act deems four circumstances as constituting an abuse of a patent:

1. the demand for a patented article in Canada is not being met to an adequate extent or on reasonable terms;

2. the refusal of the patentee to license at all or on reasonable terms causes prejudice to an existing trade, industry or class or persons in trade or by blocking the establishment of any new trade or industry and it is in the public interest that a license be granted;

…

Any time after three years following patent grant, the Attorney General or any person interested may apply to the Commissioner of Patents alleging abuse of the patent and apply for relief. If satisfied that a case of abuse has been established, the Commissioner may order a compulsory license on terms that are expedient or may revoke the patent. Alternately, the Commissioner may make no order if it best attains the objects of the provisions.

Home

[Ravenman]

Can the government use the takings clause to gain control of intellectual property? I have no idea if this has ever happened, but it seems like a reasonable power to have in the government’s back pocket.

Especially if the patent holder claims the miracle drug won’t be very lucrative, all the more reason for the government to pay (a low balled) fair market value for this worthless wonder treatment…