3 ms·

I think philosophically it has to do with being the agent that causes harm. If I never existed to give charitable donations, those people in Africa are not in

I think philosophically it has to do with being the agent that causes harm. If I never existed to give charitable donations, those people in Africa are not in a worse situation because I am not here. My existence, and my possible charity can only improve this situation. If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off, getting a more fair price for their medication instead of paying the theoretical maximum. The difference is One Thing is pushing a ball up a hill, and the Second Thing is pushing a ball down a hill. You can say, they are the same... both have balls and hills... but you have simplified out the most important distinction. You are not obligated to make someone else's life better. But you ARE obligated not to make it worse.

harryh 9y ago
If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off Well maybe. One of the reasons that drugs get invented is because people are willing to buy the rights to manufacture and distribute them. If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. But you ARE obligated not to make it worse. I can think of lots of places that people make my life worse[1] and that's fine. People raise prices on things I want to buy. I've been fired before. I've been dumped by romantic partners. I've been spurned in various personal or business dealings. I honestly think that people have a very unusual set of rules that they think should apply to medicine and health care services. They don't see these goods as typical products but as moral totems worthy of special rules. 1. This is not to say that my life is unusually bad. I think these things are pretty typical for most people.
- jlmorton 9y ago
  > If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. Right, and the law grants a limited term monopoly for novel pharmaceutical compounds to encourage innovation. In this case, the patent for Daraprim had long since expired. What Martin Shkreli did was acquire the marketing and distribution rights for Daraprim, raise the price to $75,000/month, and then withdraw all pharmacy distribution, instead relying on a direct distribution model specifically to prevent other generic drug manufacturers from obtaining the drug for comparison purposes in FDA-required bioequivalence studies. Is it legal? Sure. But he basically weaponized FDA regulations to reap a substantial profit.
  - harryh 9y ago
    It sounds to me like the FDA regulations for approving new drug manufacturers haven't been very carefully designed. Whatever ire we have should be focused on them for screwing up the regulatory environment in the first place.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The part you’re missing is that nobody else bothered to release a competing generic for all these years because there was no money in the market. And, exactly as you’d expect the market to work, after the price hikes a company did release a generic alternative.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  Just because someone, business or person doesn't want to continue a relationship with you, doesn't mean they are doing you harm. Harm is not doing something you don't like. Harm is purposely spilling nails and glass on the public road so that you can sell people more tires. If you are trying to take the pure libertarian stance, that whatever the free market dictates is ok, I am actually fine with that. But you can't grant Patents to companies in that situation and give them special legal protection. When the public grants you a legal monopoly and special protection, whether it is through a patent, or your local power company, they are only required to act responsibly and not take advantage of that protection. I actually think the most just punishment for Shkreli's actions would have been to open source all the medications he abused. So any person or business with the tools to combine the chemicals would be allowed to do so, and sell them for whatever price they wanted.
  - harryh 9y ago
    There were no patents in play for any of the medications Shkreli's companies were selling.
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypocrisy in our system, and helped show us what we need to do to create a better one. But I don't think that was his intended purpose. And it doesn't change my original argument.... Not giving to charity, is not the same thing as profiting from the exploration of vulnerable people, even if both things are technically legal. Edit: Rayiner, I can't reply to your comment but your analogy is completely wrong. It's like a Fire Department used to put out house fires for $50. And Martin identified one street on the outskirts of town that vulnerable, and he purchased the contract to protect that street from the Fire Department... and now charges them $10,000 for putting out fires. It's not 'the same' as the guy who does nothing. He didn't INVENT helping them, like every one of these crazy analogies suggest. They were being helped much better before he got there and he made the situation a lot worse for them. You can't ignore that context and set it up as a choice between "Not being helped" or "Being helped for an exorbitant price".

harryh 9y ago

If Martin never existed, those poor people would possibly be much better off Well maybe. One of the reasons that drugs get invented is because people are willing to buy the rights to manufacture and distribute them. If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. But you ARE obligated not to make it worse. I can think of lots of places that people make my life worse[1] and that's fine. People raise prices on things I want to buy. I've been fired before. I've been dumped by romantic partners. I've been spurned in various personal or business dealings. I honestly think that people have a very unusual set of rules that they think should apply to medicine and health care services. They don't see these goods as typical products but as moral totems worthy of special rules. 1. This is not to say that my life is unusually bad. I think these things are pretty typical for most people.

jlmorton 9y ago
> If Shkreli, and other people like him, didn't exist the drug might not be there in the first place. Right, and the law grants a limited term monopoly for novel pharmaceutical compounds to encourage innovation. In this case, the patent for Daraprim had long since expired. What Martin Shkreli did was acquire the marketing and distribution rights for Daraprim, raise the price to $75,000/month, and then withdraw all pharmacy distribution, instead relying on a direct distribution model specifically to prevent other generic drug manufacturers from obtaining the drug for comparison purposes in FDA-required bioequivalence studies. Is it legal? Sure. But he basically weaponized FDA regulations to reap a substantial profit.
- harryh 9y ago
  It sounds to me like the FDA regulations for approving new drug manufacturers haven't been very carefully designed. Whatever ire we have should be focused on them for screwing up the regulatory environment in the first place.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The part you’re missing is that nobody else bothered to release a competing generic for all these years because there was no money in the market. And, exactly as you’d expect the market to work, after the price hikes a company did release a generic alternative.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
Just because someone, business or person doesn't want to continue a relationship with you, doesn't mean they are doing you harm. Harm is not doing something you don't like. Harm is purposely spilling nails and glass on the public road so that you can sell people more tires. If you are trying to take the pure libertarian stance, that whatever the free market dictates is ok, I am actually fine with that. But you can't grant Patents to companies in that situation and give them special legal protection. When the public grants you a legal monopoly and special protection, whether it is through a patent, or your local power company, they are only required to act responsibly and not take advantage of that protection. I actually think the most just punishment for Shkreli's actions would have been to open source all the medications he abused. So any person or business with the tools to combine the chemicals would be allowed to do so, and sell them for whatever price they wanted.
- harryh 9y ago
  There were no patents in play for any of the medications Shkreli's companies were selling.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    You are right about that. He is really only protected by the high cost of F.D.A. approval for generic drugs. In many ways Shkreli showed us the flaws and hypocrisy in our system, and helped show us what we need to do to create a better one. But I don't think that was his intended purpose. And it doesn't change my original argument.... Not giving to charity, is not the same thing as profiting from the exploration of vulnerable people, even if both things are technically legal. Edit: Rayiner, I can't reply to your comment but your analogy is completely wrong. It's like a Fire Department used to put out house fires for $50. And Martin identified one street on the outskirts of town that vulnerable, and he purchased the contract to protect that street from the Fire Department... and now charges them $10,000 for putting out fires. It's not 'the same' as the guy who does nothing. He didn't INVENT helping them, like every one of these crazy analogies suggest. They were being helped much better before he got there and he made the situation a lot worse for them. You can't ignore that context and set it up as a choice between "Not being helped" or "Being helped for an exorbitant price".