4 ms·
Only someone who either doesn't have a treatable disease themself or doesn't have a family member who does could think this way. I have a medical issue with no
by malandrew 7y ago
Only someone who either doesn't have a treatable disease themself or doesn't have a family member who does could think this way.
I have a medical issue with no cure and so does my dad. My mother died from cancer a few years ago. I could care less if they make a profit or not so long as it improves my quality of life and that of my father.
For much of my mother's treatment, both the first time she got cancer (and beat it) and the second time (when she did not), she was getting treatment that only existed in the US. Why? Because it's profitable here.
I myself take an orphan drug only available in the US and only developed because of changes like the Orphan Drug Act of 1983.
Altruism is fine and good, but profit-seeking is more effective and expedient.
- vallode 7y agoI could similarly say only a person with a treatable illness who can afford said for-profit drugs thinks this way. 'profit-seeking is more effective and expedient' for the people that can afford it...
- yostrovs 7y agoOnly one secure and wealthy enough has the time and interest discussing matters like this. The poor and downtrodden don't even participate in these debates. Your privilege is getting ahead of you.
- malandrew 7y ago> 'profit-seeking is more effective and expedient' for the people that can afford it It doesn't matter if you can afford everything in the world if the thing you need is never developed in the first place. Some of the treatments me and my family have had were not available in Europe, Canada and other universal healthcare countries at any price. I would have probably lost almost two decades of time that I got to spend with my mother because she got treatment in the US the first time she got cancer. She was British and at the time the NHS had the 2nd worst success rates for cancer of all OECD countries and the US had the highest success rates.