U.S. vs the World: AIDS Drugs

[EmperorNero]

"Brazil openly rips off U.S. patents to produce AIDS drugs that can be used cheaply and effectively. The rest of the world applauds, with one notable exception, the U.S."

http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0,1283,44175,00.html


edit: forgot to add the poll. so just discuss: who's right?

- Brazil for infringing on U.S. patents to save lives?
or
- U.S. companies for wanting to capitalize on a world-wide epidemic?

And how would your views change if the roles were switched: the U.S. was infringing on patents from other countries?

 

[dafatha00]

poll?

 

[Amused]

What Poll?

Theft of a patent is never right.

All this will lead to is LESS incentive to develop new drugs.

 

[EmperorNero]

crap..forgot to add the poll - can I still add one? (I don't see an option in "edit&quot

 

[Czar]

Poll, what poll?

Anyway I dont think the Brazilians are wrong, not saying they are right either. On the other hand the US is wrong, or more that the companies who are behind these drugs and own the patents are wrong.

 

[Amused]

<< Poll, what poll?

Anyway I dont think the Brazilians are wrong, not saying they are right either. On the other hand the US is wrong, or more that the companies who are behind these drugs and own the patents are wrong. >>


Why? Do they not have the right to recoup the money spent on research, and make a fair profit?

If you take away those incentives, you take away the incentive to develop new drugs.

 

[vi edit]

In this case, the USA is the RAMBUS of the World.

Way to go! Money over peoples lives. Capitalism at it's finest.

 

[Amused]

<< In this case, the USA is the RAMBUS of the World.

Way to go! Money over peoples lives. Capitalism at it's finest. >>



It was capitalism that created these new drugs.

You know, it's funny, but I don't see all these socialist countries coming up with nearly as many groundbreaking and lifesaving drugs.

 

[palad]

A fair profit is fine. The problem is when the 'fair profit' overrides another person's life. Hypothetical situation: Bill Gates gets AIDS, and Homeless Joe gets AIDS. Who will get better treatment (realistically, not ideally)? Bill Gates, of course. Because he in some sense is more worthy than Homeless Joe? No, simply because he has money to afford the medicine. A company's profit should never come ahead of a person's life.

 

[dafatha00]

A company's profit should never come ahead of a person's life.

Unfortunately, when you're talking about private enterprise, financial success always comes before human lives. Unfortunately, that's the way things are. America runs on money. Period.

 

[BoberFett]

If these companies knew they wouldn't be able to make a profit, the drugs would never have been invented in the first place. It's as simple as that.

 

[Viper GTS]

A fair profit is fine.

You have to recoup development costs as well, the manufacturing cost alone doesn't determine a fair price. Sure, the raw ingredients may be dirt cheap, but the research behind the drug makes it valuable.

Pharmaceutical (sp?) companies don't develop drugs to save the world, they do it to make money.

Viper GTS

 

[BDawg]

I might feel differently if AIDS weren't a 99.9% preventable disease.

I don't like the precedence this sets.

Edit: Changed wording.

 

[BoberFett]

<< I don't like the precedence this sets. >>

Yep. This is no different than software piracy. Sure, stealing software doesn't actually cost the company money, because it's all just bits and bytes. But the profit potential disappears and why bother developing anything new? If this isn't stopped, there are two options, neither of which is appealing.

Option #1: Drug companies will fold because there's no more profit, if anybody can come along and steal what they developed. New drugs will slow to a crawl and people will continue to suffer due to the shortsightedness of people who demand that &quot;lives are more important than money.&quot;

Option #2: The U.S. drug companies will only be able to sell to U.S. customers since the rest of the world will get the drugs for next to nothing. In order to recoup their costs to continue to do research, drug costs to U.S. citizens will skyrocket. This will cause only the wealthy to be able to afford them. The goverment will then cap drug prices which will then send the U.S. back to Option #1.

Either way, if this is allowed to continue, expect bad results.

 

[Azraele]

<< &quot;Brazil openly rips off U.S. patents to produce AIDS drugs that can be used cheaply and effectively. The rest of the world applauds, with one notable exception, the U.S.

- Brazil for infringing on U.S. patents to save lives?
or
- U.S. companies for wanting to capitalize on a world-wide epidemic? >>



Neither one is right, but if one can be more wrong, I think it's the US, assuming that Brazil's interest is to save lives and not make money.

Saving lives is more important than money ever will be, imho

 

[warcleric]

By ripping off the patents and producing these drugs for next to nothing they are stealing money from the US drug companies who put the research into them. The more money they steal the less money the real drug companies have to further develop better drugs. This is the way it works, Brazil may be saying they are trying to save lives, but in the long run they are risking many more than they will save.

 

[Shmorq]

I think what Brazil did was absolutely wrong, but considering the situation they're in, I can understand it. I believe they are one of the top nations in terms of percentage of deaths due to AIDs. They couldn't afford to buy the drugs and in a life or death situation, they decided to steal it.

About the rest of the world applauding is kind of disturbing. How can they advocate a blatant theft like this? Not to mention, the revenues will decline for the companies that developed the AIDs medicines and they'll have less money for R&amp;D.

[Edit: Didn't mean to rip off WarCleric. I guess I just type slower...]

 

[GasX]

<< who's right?

- Brazil for infringing on U.S. patents to save lives?
or
- U.S. companies for wanting to capitalize on a world-wide epidemic? >>



Could you possibly over simplify more? That is an assinine question - and assinine is a generous term.

I suppose you think government bureaucracy would be able to fix worldwide health problems better?

Dumbass...

 

[BoberFett]

<< Saving lives is more important than money ever will be, imho >>

When the next AIDS comes along (and it will, don't think that AIDS is the last disease we'll have to fight) who will develop the drugs? The companies who had billions of dollars worth of research stolen? I think not.

People need to think long term. Brazil is being very shortsighted.

 

[GasX]

<< A fair profit is fine. The problem is when the 'fair profit' overrides another person's life. Hypothetical situation: Bill Gates gets AIDS, and Homeless Joe gets AIDS. Who will get better treatment (realistically, not ideally)? Bill Gates, of course. Because he in some sense is more worthy than Homeless Joe? No, simply because he has money to afford the medicine. A company's profit should never come ahead of a person's life. >>



Palad - do you realize that there are costs to be borne no matter what the level of healthcare to be provided? Someone has to pay those costs. Are you a Socialist about every issue or just healthcare?

Suppose Bill Gates buys a Porsche. What are you going to say?

&quot;I want to drive a nice car but can't afford one. Who cares!! I'll just take it because that is more fair.&quot;

 

[bluemax]

I hope the stolen information makes its way to Africa where more than half of the entire population HAS AIDS! Good gravy! :Q It's a death-zone over there...

 

[GasX]

<< I think what Brazil did was absolutely wrong, but considering the situation they're in, I can understand it. I believe they are one of the top nations in terms of percentage of deaths due to AIDs. They couldn't afford to buy the drugs and in a life or death situation, they decided to steal it. >>



Maybe they should edumacate the masses better...

 

[warcleric]

I am sick of the &quot;worthiness of individual lives&quot; argument. if I work hard and invest smartly and struggle and sweat and bleed and sacrifice to become successful, then yes dammit, I deserve the perks that come along with that success more than some junkie street person who has never accomplished anything more than stealing a TV to pawn for another fix. :|

 

[vi edit]

Drug distribution in the U.S. is an incredibly complex, and profitable business. The cost of research is increased exponentially because the US people are so sue happy and demanding that the costs of researching and testing are incredibly high.

We can't test drugs on humans because we may harm a person who is willing to accept the consequences. We can't test on monkeys because they are too cute. Instead we have to test on lab rats because nobody likes rats and then the researchers then have to guess what it will do on humans. Once testing is done, the drug companies have to go through several years and several million dollars to get approved by the FDA.

Once on the the market, the drug companies charge hospitals X dollars for the medications and the hospitals in turn charge a patient 3X dollars for the drug. Yes, three times what they paid for it. That $3,000 dose of heart medication is being given to you at 3 times higher the price than what the hospital paid for it. It doesn't matter, because you should have health insurance to pay for everything. And if you don't, the taxpayers just pick up the tab and everyone still bitches about the high priced drugs.

The drug market in the U.S. is lucrative. And it's not going to get any better. As the baby boomers start wearing down, they are going to start demanding more drugs to make their 4.8 year longer lifespan than their parents more enjoyable.

I can't bitch too much, a good chunk of my families income will be because my then wife will be preparing and authorizing the use of drugs.

 

[Amused]

<< A fair profit is fine. The problem is when the 'fair profit' overrides another person's life. Hypothetical situation: Bill Gates gets AIDS, and Homeless Joe gets AIDS. Who will get better treatment (realistically, not ideally)? Bill Gates, of course. Because he in some sense is more worthy than Homeless Joe? No, simply because he has money to afford the medicine. A company's profit should never come ahead of a person's life. >>



Damn straight Bill Gates is more worthy. He actually produces something and contributes to society. Homeless Joe on the other hand merely leaches off of society.

SOMEONE has to pay for the research and development of new drugs. Yes, the government may pay a small fraction of the cost in grants, but it MORE than gets that back in low fixed drug costs for government programs, including military hospitals and pharmicies.

The rest is invested by the drug companies themselves, and their stock holders. They deserve to not only recoup their costs, but make a fair profit on their venture.

Take this incentive away, allow willy nilly theft of patents, and you'll end up with NO new drug development.

You die, I die, everybody dies, because theft was condoned. How utopian...