Idolatry alive and well #2: Thanks for Commenting

In reference to my posting on idolatry as incarnated in TRIPS and pharmaceutical companies, Confucious-Pillar writes (LHG commentary inserted inbetween):

CP: While it is very easy to place all the blame for this supposed atrocity on U.S. pharmaceutical companies (whom I, for the record, do not support in any way. They steal from their own people too.), at what point do we hold individuals responsible for their own plights? AIDS is treatable upon manifestation, but its transfer is also highly treatable via a much less costly option: abstinence. Contemporary statistics as per South African Police reports entail that a South African woman is raped every 36 seconds, and a child every 15 minutes. Surely it is our duty as educated individuals to share our abundant knowledge, and thanks to individuals like Bill Gates (who is responsible for the single largest charity effort known to man), Africa is currently developing the infrastructure necessary for the spread of information and ideas.

LHG: Yes, contracting AIDS is often the result of irresponsible conduct - but that doesn't change the fundamental issue. Currently, it's only those who can afford the high cost of such drugs - the wealthy minority of humankind - who don't pay for their irresponsibility with their lives. For the majority, death is the price.

CP: I'm not contending that our current administration is justified in its hypocrisy, but were we even able to offer cost-effective, even free HIV treatment to third world countries, would they have the necessary infrastructure to administer these treatments? Also, who would ensure that this medication doesn't fall into the hands of other self serving individuals who would seek to horde supplies in lieu of helping those in need? I realize that pharmaceutical companies bickering over intellectual property laws does little to amend the problem, but giving away the fruits of our labors to a people who would scarcely know what to do with them could prove even more disastrous.

LHG: They do. South Africa and Brazil provide two examples of countries that are able to provide AIDS drugs to their population far below the cost of such drugs in the United States. Of course, an underlying issue is whether health should be considered a fundamental human right.

CP: I agree that medicinal information should be available to all those in need, but at what point do we recognize the fact that the development of advanced HIV treatment consumes a tremendous amount of tangible resources (not to mention countless hours of research by individuals who could easily find a higher wage designing anti-depressants)? I firmly believe that the U.S. should make some sacrifices for the third world that drives our super-consumption, but the problems go much deeper than simple matters of medicine.

LHG: Drug companies argue that patents are needed to recoup the money spent on research and development of new drugs. Studies have shown, however, that U.S. drug companies often spend more on marketing, advertising and administration than they do on research and development. Of the 1035 new drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug administration between 1989 and 2000 only 15 per cent were innovative drugs. The others were modified versions of new drugs with low research and development costs. In the specific case of AIDS, many drugs were developed by publicly funded laboratories and tested with public funds. To top it off, pharmaceutical companies based in the United States, Europe or Japan today barely produce, let alone research, drugs against malaria or tuberculosis, which ravage the Third World yet are extremely rare in the industrialized nations. The whole industry is geared toward the wealthy - either by focusing on drugs that are of interest to the wealthy or pricing drugs so that only the wealthy can afford them. Paul Farmer's Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor is good on this topic.

Confucius-Pillar, thanks for commenting - what would I do without you?