Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thanks for pigeon-holeing me immediately with a stereotypical label. I havent taken any sides if you've noticed, I've simply expressed a little known belief.
Think about it this way. How is any drug company going to stand in the public eye and say:
"Yes, we have a cure, but its going to cost $20K per person to cover our R&D costs, marketing and then meet our shareholder profit expectations."
Your average HIV infected African citizen cant afford that. The African government cant afford that. Most international organizations cant afford that.
Who do you figure is going to pick up the tab, especially considering that part of the money goes straight into the coffers of a private company and is used to buy jets and cars and malibu mansions. No aid organization can do that when there is a profit being made at one end, as a non-profit organization cannot justify expenses that result in another organization's profit, its not considered efficient and would never be approved.
Its a sticky grey area for all involved. I do agree with you though in the thought that profit has to be made in order to continue medical advances. But as it approaches situations like this it becomes a quandry where money is exchanged for continued life.
You can see the dilemma.
|
I meant my comment towards the theory not you in particular. I was offering up my belief with regards to that theory. I didn't think I signalled you out as even believing in that. My apologies if it came out the wrong way.