- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- worldnewsnonus@lemy.lol
Vital drugs are either not authorized or are deemed too expensive, as cases rise.
Rates of tuberculosis are on the rise in Europe, but countries are ill-equipped and lack access to the latest drugs targeting the worst strains.
Some patients are spending a year and a half in hospital isolation receiving old medicines instead of just six months of treatment at home, because countries do not have access to the most up-to-date therapies to cure people of the infectious disease.
In some EU countries, the latest medicines are either not authorized or are deemed too expensive to use. To effectively treat patients, the NGO Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières, MSF) has stepped in to help in Poland and Slovakia.
Earlier this year, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (EDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that Europe was stalling in its quest to suppress tuberculosis and could miss its 2030 targets to end the disease. The agencies caution that if Europe doesn’t get a grip on the rising rates of infection with the recommended cocktail of drugs, the gains made over the last decade could be lost.
If someone dies because the medicine needed to save them is “too expensive,” both the corporate executives who set the price and the government cheapskates who won’t adequately fund healthcare should be guilty of murder. Change my mind.
If it’s a question of cost, then keeping someone in hospital for a year and a half surely has to be more expensive than just buying the drugs.
Surely they can’t both be true at the same time though, right? Either governments are rightfully not participating in a price-gouging racket, or they are cheapskates not willing to pay pharma companies.
or to put it in other terms
there are people literally dying in Africa right now because of hunger. You could spend money and ship food to them to save their life but you don’t. Is it because you’re a cheapstake who doesn’t care for human life?
I knew you’d retort with this exact example, because you’re predictable.
No, I actually don’t have the means to save everyone starving in Africa, or even a few. I don’t have supply chain access, influence over foreign governments, or anything to directly aid anyone internationally. So I can give to charities, and do, but government corruption in poor nations ensures that the reach of those donations is limited and the cycle of poverty is ever perpetuated in order to maintain their existing power dynamics.
I also fully support foreign aid and am happy to pay my taxes to contribute to that.
I also am not wealthy. I’m not poor, but I have a hard cap on how much I can give to others before I’m hurting myself and my dependents, and that amount is nothing more than enough to keep a few people limping along for a little longer.
A billion-dollar company can reduce the cost of their absurdly priced medicines that would save millions, and still make insane profits. They just might not maintain perpetual growth.
I want you see you develop any of these life saving drugs. How much would education cost? How much would a lab and resources cost?
If a publicly funded lab invents these cures then yes it should be open to the public
But if a private company does it, it belongs ti the private company.
Unless you don’t believe in private ownership?
I believe if you have the means to save someone and willfully withhold it, you’re culpable for murder.
Pharmaceutical companies aren’t going bankrupt if they can’t charge thousands of dollars for a single dose. Common medications that are manufactured and sold in bulk subsidize the cost of medicines for rare conditions. They also enjoy patent benefits other industries don’t get specifically to recouperate R&D costs.
Governments also can and do negotiate for lower drug costs, which is why medication is cheaper in Canada than the US.
Oh, and don’t forget all the public funding pharmaceutical companies already get. Governments dumped tons of money into developing the covid vaccines and the companies made insane profits off of it.
“If I invented the means of saving lives that doesn’t make it my responsibility to actually do so. Especially if there are profits on the line”. Wow.
Germany has a beautiful sentence in its constitution:
The thought being that while private property is a core staple of our society this is only the case because the concept of private property is seen as beneficial overall. If private property starts hurting the general public then the implied responsibilities coming with the property are not being fulfilled and the concept loses its value to society as a whole.
restricting access to a cure is does not equal hurting.
By that logic, not inventing a cure, when you could otherwise do so, is also hurting. So companies developing chronic medicines instead of cures would be actively engaging in hurt
which does not make sense
No that’s not the same. In one case there is only the theoretical possibility of help whereas in the other case there is a realizable possibility for help. This is a big difference.