I'm saying that if the company is already pulling in a reasonable degree of profit and they are faced with the decision of cutting out the health and well-being of patients in order to facilitate more profit, the choice to do so is wrong.
I don't know about patents, but copyrights are absolutely silly. Their purpose is to encourage the creation of more contributions to the world, but they work against that by preventing people from building off of the works of others for an absurd amount of time.I think our 10-year patent system for drugs is pretty good.
For other stuff, though? Shit needs rebuilding.
That's why that discussion is neither here nor there.
There are many practices things that businesses could do or stop doing that would increase their profits. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing for them to do or stop doing them.
And the free market dictates that consumers won't buy or be able to afford as much of same products when prices are raised. Not to mention other companies still produce it at established prices. So it's smarter to simply produce something that is already being bought at much better profit margins.
And anyway, the problem with drug shortages in general is quality and manufacturing problems. The shortage in the United States is also due to that.
Originally Posted by American Society of Health-System Pharmacists
---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 07:56 AM ----------
/ten chars
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-19 at 07:57 AM.
I did read that article. That might address shortages in America and simply be a coincidence. Says nothing of Europe.
Well, these companies have moral obligations to their shareholders as well. Why don't you ask the ESMA (EU version of the SEC) where the company's obligations truly lie?/ten chars
---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 08:12 AM ----------
Yes they are. Every minute spent making X drug at $4 instead of Y drug at $5 costs them $1.
I'm really not going to try to argue with you if you want to claim that an opportunity cost is the same thing as operating at a loss.Yes they are. Every minute spent making X drug at $4 instead of Y drug at $5 costs them $1.
This is an industry that has chronic problems with shortages. There is a shortage in America and there is potentially going to be a shortage in Europe, according to your article. Calling it a "coincidence" in order to argue/insinuate that Europe's facing shortages only because of it's healthcare system is rather silly.
So? The point stands. Getting even richer at the expense of human life and suffering.Well, these companies have moral obligations to their shareholders as well.
---------- Post added 2012-11-19 at 08:34 AM ----------
In the same way that a pirated song is a lost sale.
Last edited by semaphore; 2012-11-19 at 08:34 AM.
Both your title and the articles title are misleading. The cancer drug is not unprofitable. "But many of Germany's top providers have stopped making the drug because it is not as profitable as other, more expensive ones."
The drugs companies just know they can make far more money out of making other chemotherapy drugs and charge through the roof for them. Fluorouracil is profitable its just not as profitable as other drugs. That said if there is a demand for it some company will supply it even if it has to come from a different source than now (e.g. India).
Corporate greed shows it's ugly rear once again...
"because pharmaceutical companies say it is not financially worth their while to make it any more."
This quote turns my stomach, I can't believe they actually think & reason like this.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance