north america

north america

opinions

The following opinions were contributed to our website. Please note that the opinions have not been edited and is presented the way they were received.

The world belongs to all human races. It is unethical of western pharmaceutical companies to take golden opportunities from this epidemic. Poor people should be able to get the medicine.

- Carley, Canada

Why can’t the western pharmaceutical companies use developing countries to test the efficacy of the new AIDS drugs? In this case both the pharmaceutical companies and the poor people benefit. It is possible for the two to forge an alliance and become winners.

- Anthony, USA

Supposedly the price of medication is reflective of all the costs that have gone into developing the drug, which includes years of research and testing. With that in mind, as a drug becomes established and approved; the drug companies will earn their investment back over a period of time after which most costs have been recouped. This would mean that the price could come down but yet that seems to be the case for very few drugs. Even the very first generation of HIV drugs is still close at the same price level as when they first come out. Meaning that the profit margin has increased over time. Now, if that is morally correct or not is something else. We live in a capitalistic society, we work for profit. That is why we have sweatshops in India and that is why we go to war: for profit. Yes, these companies make gigantic profits, but lets not forget that they have also spend BILLIONS of dollars and are continuing to spend that much in researching and developing newer and better drugs to combat HIV/AIDS. That is money that they have to spend up front, without any guarantees of finding something new or having it approved by the FDA when they do discover something new. That is a major financial risk to take for a company.

The other thing that we cannot forget is that almost every major drug company has a drug assistance program, meaning that they will donate x-amount of their drugs for free to those people without income or insurance. That is money out of their pockets to help those who are sick. So let’s say that we put a price cap on HIV drugs and the companies then decide to stop producing them because they can no longer recoup any of their costs. Then what? Are we, the public, willing to pay for all the research and development costs that go into a new drug? Yes, corporate drug companies are making a profit on something that we need to stay alive. They are literally making a dime at our lives expense. That is why I believe there will not be a vaccine for a very long time, if ever. Why research and develop a drug that will cure people and eliminate a guaranteed source of income? Somebody who is cured doesn’t need expensive medications for 30 years; hence you are making less money by curing people than by keeping them alive with your medications. From a profit point of view, finding a vaccine is a bad business move.

Most of the first generation of HIV meds is reaching their patent expiration mark at which point they will become available for generic production. What will happen with the price at that point remains to be seen. When the patents expire, we enter the field of competitive production. Capitalism, profit and competition. Three cornerstones of the society and economy we ourselves created and used to our advantage and to enrich our lives. Three cornerstones we have gone to war for to defend. Now we want to stand up, point our finger and say it is not right?

- Sven, USA

I am totally perplexed in reference to this question, and I assume that most right thinking Americans are. It takes a calmness to tackle this question, and a good health plan, which if I didn't have, would skew my thoughts against the drug manufacturers. It also takes a feeling heart, and I pray that my heart is tender to those who need it. These factions do not always meet, which is why I don't know for certain, and struggle with the answer. First and formost, the FDA is one of the most rigorous testing bodies in the world. Andy drug that is developed takes mega billions to research, test, and develop, only to then be put to the excrutiating testing of the FDA. I do not beieve that any drug manufacturer want to see a drug that has taken years of research, time, and money cause horrible side effects or deaths, but it can and does happen. That is all that money down the drain, and their reputations, too. I suppose that is why the FDA is a necessary evil. Here you have the events of one's life pitted against the "big corporation", and it's so easy to victimize the big bad profit wallowing corporation, but in truth, do we really think this all would get done if not for profit? The corporations have every right to make a profit, and why not? We don't expect shoe manufacturers to produce shoes with no profit, but shoes do not affect our life's bottom line, do they? Drugs, we say, are different. Life and death. Well, so they are, but do we really need to stop the flow of profit to the drug companies? They would stop all the research, and commitment to finding new cures, new drugs if that one REALISTIC motivation were curtailed, and then where would we be? Why are we so horrid as to suggest that that is all that they are in it for? These people may spend an entire career on one thing, and never see it's fruition for one reason or another. How can we belittle these learned men and women who spend lifetimes trying to cure their fellow man by saying that they're only in it for money? And law suits! The companies are left swinging in the breeze there, how can they do all this if not for profit? It is the American way. But, so is the entitlement attitude we all have. It's my health, so I'm entitled. It's life or death, so I'm entitled. The government is killing me. Well, I couldn't agree more, but a happy balance must be struck. You don't deserve the world on a plate simply because God favored you to be born an American. Nor do you deserve to die because you cannot afford a drug that you know is given to a horse at 1/10 the price, or handed out free in Uganda. There is a medium here, and I am not aware of it. Much smarter, better folks have tried to find it, and I am unaware that anyone has made much headway. Perhaps capping the costs after the initial recoupment of all R&D costs at a certain percentage would be an answer? I cannot be sure. For now, I am lucky enough to have health care, and I am smart enough to go home to New York (where all maintenance meds are covered) if it became a food or medicine issue for me. I also have access to Canada, but thank Jesus I am not faced with these issues, or I may not feel this way. Millions are, though; and do. So, there you have the opinion of one woman who cannot really form an opinion one way or another. Next question? Mary Boland-Doyle mebd@comcast.net

- Mary, USA

Would I continue to watch people suffer from aids or force a company to give its patent away. I would think that a company spending a billion dollars bringing a drug to market is entitled to their profit. If they do to much charity work then they won't be around long anyway, then who wins? Why can't some international group or charity groups pick up the tab. Basically what I'm saying is, the company should be paid and its just a matter of who should pay the bill. For instance figure out a countries needs and by their need they pay their portion. I guess not much heart opening here.

- Dave, USA

I believe that the contrast of corporate profits and public health is so glaring that at first look I would respond that something must be done to curtail the greed in order to save lives, especially the lives of the underpriveledged. I think it is morally reprehensible that even after excess, let alone normal, profits have been realized pharmaceutical companies will let people suffer and die if they are unable to pay for drugs. However, it is greed that is the incentive for companies to take the financial risks necessary to produce new potentially life saving drugs. I learned in business school that "profit" is not a dirty word. I tend to disagree a bit with that. I believe the profit motive leads people to do things (sometimes) that are dirty and contemptible. But sometimes the end justifies the means and getting life saving medications, at any cost, is better than not getting them at all. Without the expectations of excess profits corporations will not come into existence that can muster the resources necessary to bring new drugs to market. Corporations reflect human behavior which is that they act in their own self interest. Communism showed us that people will not work very hard for the common good.just as capitalism/entrepreneurship shows us how hard people will work to advance themselves. Glory seekers and the greedy make the world go 'round and only after ever need (on Maslow's hierarchy) has been fulfilled ten times over will the greedy allow a crumb for those in need. Think about all the commercials that claim you can feed a starving (fill in your own third world nation) child for $.15 a day. Then ask yourself why, if that is true, is there a hungry person any where in this world. I hate to see a lion kill a deer but I accept that it is the natural order of things. Smith and Wesson isn't in business to kill people, it is in business to make money. Drug companies are not in the business to save lives but lives can be saved when they are successful at making money. If I ruled the world things would be different.

- Steve, USA

reality:opinions