|
On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent.
It was pushed through at his time, so......
By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
|
On October 14 2012 06:04 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
Explain your opinion a bit further.
|
On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research...
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
|
On October 14 2012 06:06 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent. It was pushed through at his time, so...... By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago.
If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
|
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:
[quote]
You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
|
Cool I applied to Genzyme for a job, I hope they hire me so I can get a piece of this extra cash flow!
|
On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:40 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:39 ImAbstracT wrote:
Some things like medicine should be considered a public good, and treated as such. Class domination at its finest. You seem confused as to where medicine is invented and how. There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place.
Let's view it in the context of today's time then.
Pharmaceutical companies are the one of the largest profiting industries with one of the largest profit margins in the world. The R&D / Testing / Release cycle is indeed extremely long and often companies only have a 5 year window out of their patent holding period to profit from the drug, but if you actually look at the returns ratio it's still absurdly high, drugs often gross in the tens of billions.
Generic drug production as well as drug production and sales across boarders are restrained by laws which are in direct principle opposition of the aforementioned "Free to make profits" principle that many argue pharmaceutical companies can operate under, so they are free to make as much of a profit as they can yet protected by law from foreign or even subsidiary interest in other countries / regions from competition. Barring governments from negotiation of drug / vaccine prices even in times of crisis is also a right given above the rights of any other private profiting organization when there are no alternatives.
If a specific market is controlled only by a single available substance and alternatives are removed it is a breach of antitrust / competition law. The implication being that said substance will become available in the future, yet there is ongoing effort to criminalize generic medicine and eliminate that availability.
Arguing that a certain economical or societal system grants immunity to companies OR individuals OR governments to profiteer against common human interests is an international issue for all of humanity, not a domestic one. I'm not saying that legal action would be taken in this scenario, simply that the reaction and moral outrage is warranted.
|
On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:43 ImAbstracT wrote:
[quote]
There have been many medicines of the past, vaccines and such, which scientists have gave to society. No copyrighting, no making billions of dollars off of the suffering of people. Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion.
Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
@Caihead
If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it.
I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
|
On October 14 2012 06:07 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:06 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent. It was pushed through at his time, so...... By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago. If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all.
100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people. History is history. They are interesting, and there are things we can learn from them, but we should not treat it like gospel.
|
On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:
I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism.
If the company management does not do it's best towards increasing shareholder value (read: profit), said management will be replaced by people who will, simple as that.
|
On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society.
It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products.
|
On October 14 2012 06:10 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:07 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:06 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 achan1058 wrote:On October 14 2012 05:57 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Well, in fact, intellectual property is quite new under the sun. It's not. Beethoven raged about piracy many years ago, of people copying his manuscript. There were even no recordings back then!! Yes...that's the point. The only thing Beethoven could do was rage, because Intellectual Property as a legal concept was non-existent. It was pushed through at his time, so...... By the way, I consider 100 years to be quite old, especially when things like computing science as a field did not exist until 50 years ago. If you think 100 years is old you have lost the ability to think historically. That is the problem. 100 years is nothing. Nothing at all. 100 years is everything, unless you live longer than that. There are people out there that argues 1000 year traditions are somehow relevant, I am not one of those people.
Please don't have children
edit: the problem with you is that you don't know when you live
edit: what do you mean, treat "history like gospel." I have no idea what that means.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 14 2012 06:11 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. It's more potent in America. Americans accept "liberty" and "freedom" and pay out the ass for these things, they prefer to drop 6grand a year on healthcare and then another x amount on overpriced pharma products well the rest of the civilized world drops 2-3grand on taxes for these things and moves along with their day paying x/2 amount for pharma products.
Uhm, the medical companies doesnt give two shits about whether government or private enterprises pay for their medicines, just as long as someone does.
|
On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes.
No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money.
Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
|
On October 14 2012 06:03 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:57 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. Antitrust law should also be applied in a scenario where patent holders are the only ones allowed to make a drug and where they intend to eliminate alternatives and generics. What place does antitrust law have within the scenario where they don't patent a compound manufacture proces (like coca cola) and just monopolize it?
A pharmaceutical in this case is classified as a necessity not a luxury, a process that manufactures a luxury which has numerous parallels and alternatives shouldn't be classified in the same way as a necessity. I'm not an expert on the antitrust law of the region so I refrain from commenting on that, but it's my guess that such a distinction is drawn. Also to add to that there are regulations across borders and regions for the prices of the same substance so regional antitrust laws do apply in the scope of international trade.
|
On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money.
I would have laughed much harder if you used cancer as an example.
|
On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
What about nothing? Surely it too has something to do with society.
|
On October 14 2012 06:13 achan1058 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:12 JackDino wrote:On October 14 2012 02:56 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:53 heliusx wrote:On October 14 2012 02:52 S:klogW wrote:On October 14 2012 02:50 heliusx wrote:
Whats new really. Pharmaceutical companies do a lot of really unethical stuff. Just ask africa. New? Multiple Sclerosis. 20 times higher than the original price. That's new. Whats new in the sense that the industry has been fucking people over since forever. Everybody in power has been fucking over people not in power since forever. This one is unique because of the scale and the gravity of the greed here, considering that all the change the company will do is with the pigmentation with the drugs and the boxes. No it's not new at all, the reason there isn't a permanent cure for aids for example is because the current drugs make much more money, once there's a permanent cure they can say byebye to their money. Pharmaceutics aren't about curing people, they're all about money. I would have laughed much harder if you used cancer as an example.
You can laugh all you want but it's how it is.
|
Netherlands19138 Posts
On October 14 2012 06:04 Cloud wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:55 Nyovne wrote:
They are private companies, they have the right to price their good whatever amount they please. Under no situation have they any obligation towards society other then statuary limitations provided by law. Competition and competition law (anti cartel regulations) should be the balancing factor for this. Patent law and patent pools might be the source of this kind of 'unethical' corporate behavior though. But then again, nothing new under the sun there. And the patent/copyright system is currently rigged to be completely abused. If companies wont stand up against this broken and unfair system then no one will.
Look at your government. That's the establishment you should expect to balance and regulate corporate practice. Companies are like children, always testing the boundaries of their parents (government) patience and rules. Corruption and lobbying practices obviously undermine this but lets leave that out of this discussion as that's a different tale to tell.
|
On October 14 2012 06:09 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 06:08 Catch]22 wrote:On October 14 2012 06:07 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:58 ImAbstracT wrote:On October 14 2012 05:51 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:50 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:48 sam!zdat wrote:On October 14 2012 05:47 Caihead wrote:On October 14 2012 05:44 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
Well, even if such a mythical past existed, things are more complicated now. Well... It did exist, the first inoculation / vaccine programs like smallpox for example. Sure, I understand. I just think it's always good to be wary any time you make an argument based on the good old days. It wasn't the good old days, you don't simply reflect on periods of history and see what humanity is capable of in terms of objective good and care for other human beings, then lament the lack of progress but accept it at face value. You're not understanding me. The point is that the development of drugs now is more complicated than "look this mold kills bacteria" or "hey if I inject you with a little bit of this virus then your body learns to cope with it!" I'm as idealistic as they come... Yet those discoveries at those times were just as ground breaking as the ones that have been made in modern medicine. You have to view them in context of the times in which they took place. I am... What you are not doing is viewing current pharmaceutical research in the context of the time in which it takes place. edit: level of groundbreakingness does not correlate with the amount of capital required as an investment into research... I am just wondering how much of the billions they make is actually required to further research. Money shouldn't be the ends of medical research. It should be the advancement of the human race. A healthier future, not a lot of zeros in a bank account.To use chomsky profit shouldn't come before people. But such is capitalism. There it is. Your problem isnt with current medical patent legislation, it is with SOCIETY. I think there is another thread entirely for that discussion. Medical patent legislation is a facet of society. How can you think of one thing in isolation from everything else? Everything is always a question of society. @Caihead If there's one thing I have no shortage of, it's moral outrage. Fuck, I should bottle the stuff and sell it. I'm just saying if you are thinking of solutions, you have to take into account the massive capital outlays required to develop drugs. That's all.
Alternatives have been argued and attempted in numerous countries already and as the result some countries have more functional healthcare systems than others. I don't need to think of solutions there are already alternatives present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
