3 ms·
> Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money. Not really. It assumes that the drugs save lives. If you pay
by Kalium 11y ago
> Loaded question. This assumes they are doing it to save lives instead of doing it to make money.
Not really. It assumes that the drugs save lives. If you pay $X for drug that was developed to save your live or $X for an identical drug that was developed to do a job and turn a profit, it's the same $X and the same drug.
Why people are doing things is generally less important than that they are. This is one of those cases. Demanding a particular mindset when all other things are equal is a little bit silly.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago>to save lives It pretty much does assume it there. And it does matter because of how one would react. If your end goal is saving lives, you wouldn't spend a lot working for a cure to baldness and you wouldn't buy rights to a drug and then jack up the price just because you could.
- Kalium 11y agoOK. Then what do you think is the correct course of action for someone whose goal is to save lives? As opposed to making money, adopting temporarily your implicit contention that the two are opposed. Preferably a sustainable course of action that allows for future actions to take place. A one-shot is generally useless on any kind of real timescale.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoAct like a non-profit instead of a for-profit.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Kalium 11y agoThank you for your answer.