3 ms·

Then they simply may not sell it. The potential liabilities are gigantic, and the risk calculation may put the equation under water. It's the problem with a l

Then they simply may not sell it. The potential liabilities are gigantic, and the risk calculation may put the equation under water. It's the problem with a lot of medical products, particularly vaccines which are hard for pharma companies to market. But it's made worse in regimes that are either litigious, have little in the way of caps over civil claims, or have Justice Systems which are compromised. South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity. That's the real world risk/reward equation and it's unavoidable. It's for similar reasons that it's a lot harder to raise financing for building infrastructure in SA (or anything else) than otherwise - the interest rates charged are considerably more as there's greater risk of failure, or problems, and even addressing commercial concerns becomes difficult if the justice system is compromised. For this reason, the loans to SA would have those risks 'priced in' at much higher interest rates ... which by the way is the other way pharma companies would normally give on the indemnity issue negotiation - by raising prices, but price becomes a problem for other ethical reasons.

RikNieu 5y ago
That argument might hold... but other commenters here suggested the same terms were put to first world countries, like the US and UK.
davidhyde 5y ago
> “South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.” Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politically placed judges and there is lack of evidence that this is a problem in the SA legal system. A recent demonstration of this resilience to corruption is the fact that the courts recently put the ex-president Zuma in jail; someone with a lot of corrupt power. Besides, protecting yourself against a corrupt legal system with beneficial legal clauses just doesn’t make sense. Why even use a contract at all if you don’t believe in the legal system? They put those clauses in there precisely because the legal system is good and they will be held to account. No, Pfizer is just being a bully because they think they can get away with it. Same thing happens every day when individuals feel trapped into signing unfavourable employment contracts because they are too far along and feel that there are no reasonable alternatives. I think that it’s a good thing that this generated bad PR for Pfizer.
- jollybean 5y ago
  Corruption is usually systematic, and it doesn't take that much one way or the other. And yes, it's helpful to have indemnity clauses especially in a corrupt system, because it becomes easier to negotiate within the system, and politically. Pfizer is not a bully, they're trying to protect themselves in a very corrupt place.

RikNieu 5y ago

That argument might hold... but other commenters here suggested the same terms were put to first world countries, like the US and UK.

davidhyde 5y ago

> “South Africa is a very corrupt state, it's just too easy for that system to act in a way that does not have integrity.” Being a corrupt state does not imply a corrupt legal system. SA’s legal system is based very closely on the UK’s (with some Dutch law and African customary law tweaks thrown in) and is considered to be very good actually. Some legal systems around the world are weakened by lobbying and politically placed judges and there is lack of evidence that this is a problem in the SA legal system. A recent demonstration of this resilience to corruption is the fact that the courts recently put the ex-president Zuma in jail; someone with a lot of corrupt power. Besides, protecting yourself against a corrupt legal system with beneficial legal clauses just doesn’t make sense. Why even use a contract at all if you don’t believe in the legal system? They put those clauses in there precisely because the legal system is good and they will be held to account. No, Pfizer is just being a bully because they think they can get away with it. Same thing happens every day when individuals feel trapped into signing unfavourable employment contracts because they are too far along and feel that there are no reasonable alternatives. I think that it’s a good thing that this generated bad PR for Pfizer.

jollybean 5y ago
Corruption is usually systematic, and it doesn't take that much one way or the other. And yes, it's helpful to have indemnity clauses especially in a corrupt system, because it becomes easier to negotiate within the system, and politically. Pfizer is not a bully, they're trying to protect themselves in a very corrupt place.