3 ms·

That's an interesting assertion, please elaborate: Why not? The government already forces you to do a lot of things for the greater good of the community. You'r

That's an interesting assertion, please elaborate: Why not? The government already forces you to do a lot of things for the greater good of the community. You're forced to pay taxes, you're forced to send your kids to school, you're forced to obey laws, in some countries you're forced to either join the army or do some sort of civil service. You're forced not to share your stash of heroin or your new production method of meth. You're forced not to spread your knowledge of building nuclear weapons. All of this already exists and is commonly accepted to be a net positive thing. So why can't a government force a company to cut the price of a drug that the company wants to sell. It's not like the company doesn't want to share the drug - they're just aware that this is effectively a monopoly since not other comparable treatment exists. People will pay any price they can afford. This is damaging society since it draws resources from the society to private investors. I don't think it's wrong that the government is asking for a justification - the drug might be extraordinarily expensive to produce, the pill is lined in gold and platinum and has hand-carved inscriptions on it, tailored to the patients need, ... You could also argue that it's good when the company gets to squeeze the market dry since that will encourage others to compete, but how would that benefit society if there's a lot of drugs that nobody can afford. Just as a thought experiment: What if Fleming, Chain and Florey kept the knowledge about penicillin and charged as much money as they could? Millions of people would have died.

vixen99 13y ago
If you force a company to cut the price of a drug you're sending a message to this and other drug companies - 'think carefully before you decide to embark on new research; the development of this promising product may not be in your employees'/shareholders' interests and you're not a charity'. I guess you're not considering forcing a drug company to manufacture a drug but where does this application of force end? Many would dispute that the examples you quote are net positive. You may know that NICE is a UK National Health Service committee that regularly votes out expensive drugs where cost/benefit analysis indicates that they cost too much. If they do then patients can pay privately (but I believe the drug would not be administered by the NHS - you have to pay for a re-diagnosis) or (as in reported cases) die. What is a life worth? Depends but it certainly has a fairly modest price attached to it much though we don't like to admit it.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  You're arguing market forces and I mentioned that in my post. The parent argues using moral and I don't think that there's a moral argument to be made. I'm very careful when people try and argue using market forces since the market in pharmaceuticals is heavily regulated anyways. There's a lot of examples where market forces go against the greater good of the community and the pharma market is a prime example. It's a common occurrence that drugs get modified slightly and then resubmitted to extend the patent period and the modification does not make the drug statistically significantly more effective. This is in line with market forces - it's in the interest of the company and the shareholders, but it's completely opposed to the interest of the community and to the idea of the patent system (your monopoly ran out, your research cost have been paid back). Should the government step in or let the market forces rule?
- dTal 13y ago
  I think you're looking at NICE the wrong way - the monetary value of a human life is not arbitrary, it is measured in terms of other lives. It is arguably unethical to spend millions of pounds to save one person's life, when that same million pounds could have saved 10 other people, or more. On the other hand, the whole point of socialised medicine is the guarantee that society will go out of its way for you in your time of need. Balancing utilitarian ethics and socialist ethics is the essential but unenviable job of NICE. As for forcing companies to sell life-saving drugs at reasonable cost, I'm all for it, but it seems to me to be a major problem that such vital societal functions as advancing the medical state of the art are left to organisational structures that exist in a landscape where ethics and altruism are highly selected against.
hardwaresofton 13y ago
Well the idea is that as soon as you start having governments making decisions "for the greater good" a lot of not very good things can happen very fast. It's easy to focus on the positive examples, but when governments start making value judgements, if your values don't line up with the government's you're going to have a pretty bad time. And yes -- everyone's bringing up that point, but still, that would have meant they were villains. People have the right to be villainous, if they so choose, whether you agree or disagree. Note- asking for a justification is one thing, forcing them to lower prices is another, and I'm opposed to the latter. Also, the same decision making body you're hoping will do the net-positive thing has started many wars and done many thinks that are not very conscionable So let's try a different example: What if the government took a hard line on monitoring every citizen in the US, and enforcing laws with drones, because it would save "millions of lives"? That's less subtle, but the loss of rights that are naturally yours is there nonetheless

vixen99 13y ago

If you force a company to cut the price of a drug you're sending a message to this and other drug companies - 'think carefully before you decide to embark on new research; the development of this promising product may not be in your employees'/shareholders' interests and you're not a charity'. I guess you're not considering forcing a drug company to manufacture a drug but where does this application of force end? Many would dispute that the examples you quote are net positive. You may know that NICE is a UK National Health Service committee that regularly votes out expensive drugs where cost/benefit analysis indicates that they cost too much. If they do then patients can pay privately (but I believe the drug would not be administered by the NHS - you have to pay for a re-diagnosis) or (as in reported cases) die. What is a life worth? Depends but it certainly has a fairly modest price attached to it much though we don't like to admit it.

Xylakant 13y ago
You're arguing market forces and I mentioned that in my post. The parent argues using moral and I don't think that there's a moral argument to be made. I'm very careful when people try and argue using market forces since the market in pharmaceuticals is heavily regulated anyways. There's a lot of examples where market forces go against the greater good of the community and the pharma market is a prime example. It's a common occurrence that drugs get modified slightly and then resubmitted to extend the patent period and the modification does not make the drug statistically significantly more effective. This is in line with market forces - it's in the interest of the company and the shareholders, but it's completely opposed to the interest of the community and to the idea of the patent system (your monopoly ran out, your research cost have been paid back). Should the government step in or let the market forces rule?
dTal 13y ago
I think you're looking at NICE the wrong way - the monetary value of a human life is not arbitrary, it is measured in terms of other lives. It is arguably unethical to spend millions of pounds to save one person's life, when that same million pounds could have saved 10 other people, or more. On the other hand, the whole point of socialised medicine is the guarantee that society will go out of its way for you in your time of need. Balancing utilitarian ethics and socialist ethics is the essential but unenviable job of NICE. As for forcing companies to sell life-saving drugs at reasonable cost, I'm all for it, but it seems to me to be a major problem that such vital societal functions as advancing the medical state of the art are left to organisational structures that exist in a landscape where ethics and altruism are highly selected against.

hardwaresofton 13y ago

Well the idea is that as soon as you start having governments making decisions "for the greater good" a lot of not very good things can happen very fast. It's easy to focus on the positive examples, but when governments start making value judgements, if your values don't line up with the government's you're going to have a pretty bad time. And yes -- everyone's bringing up that point, but still, that would have meant they were villains. People have the right to be villainous, if they so choose, whether you agree or disagree. Note- asking for a justification is one thing, forcing them to lower prices is another, and I'm opposed to the latter. Also, the same decision making body you're hoping will do the net-positive thing has started many wars and done many thinks that are not very conscionable So let's try a different example: What if the government took a hard line on monitoring every citizen in the US, and enforcing laws with drones, because it would save "millions of lives"? That's less subtle, but the loss of rights that are naturally yours is there nonetheless