To think that in general pharmeceutical companies are NOT evil corporations?

[toptramp]

I have just started taking anti depressants. I went on a different forum last night for users and it was outrageous the amount of crap they were getting from some people telling them that they were being hoodwinked by pharmeceutical companies who are only interested in money and that ads are in fact a placebo effect.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with a company making a profit in the first place and I don't think that these companies put profit above human health. Profit is a benefit of improving people's heath and of course a lot of research goes into producing drugs and hard working scientists etc muct be paid.

I have seen the Constant Gardener and I am aware of the vaccine debate and I have no doubt that politics plays a big part in drug production. The person who finds the cure for cancer for example is going to be subject to huge pressures (that is assuming the cure hasn't been found).

I think that pharmeceutical companies are a GOOD thing generally.

That malaria vaccine study was funded by a non-profit making organisation and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. GSK aren't daft either, they will have an eye on the publicity.

I'm not sure I agree that it should be a pharmaceutical company's responsibility to spend their money developing drugs which won't be profitable - after all, it isn't a farmer's responsibility to send food aid to Africa. Sure - if we all put enough pressure on the farmers, they'd agree to send a certain portion of what they grow to an aid programme... but I'm not sure it would be a reasonable thing for us to expect, nor would it be the most effective way for our country to organise food aid.

If we want certain research to be done - and certain drugs to be developed - because we think it's in the social interest, then I think the normal thing to do would be to pay for that through our taxes. That's why we collect taxes - to all chip in to pay for things which we think are in the common good. Obviously, if we want to spend more money on things, we also need to have higher taxes.

It might seem a neat solution to just get the pharma companies to pay for it, but it's a false neatness - there isn't really any reason why it should be done that way, and (like the farmers individually choosing what to send as food aid, and each posting their parcel across) it doesn't seem very effective.

You can tax some industries more than others, if they're more profitable/cause public harm (e.g. tobacco, alcohol etc). And if we honestly think that it's justified and the pharma industry can take it, then surely it would make more sense to be honest about it, and have an industry specific tax - and then pay for publicly-funded research. Then it's clear what society is spending (and what else they could buy for that money) and what we are buying.

Whether increasing the tax rate for pharma companies would actually generate more tax is a separate question, which I don't know the answer to: there's a certain level at which you maximise the tax take from companies. If you tax at 0% you'll get no tax income, and if you tax at 100% you'll get no tax income (because there's no incentive for anyone to do anything) and you get a parabola shape in between. It's the government's job to figure out where the top of that parabola is, in order to get the maximum tax income. I didn't just make that up, btw - some economist came up with a theory about it, but I can't remember his name.

But I don't mind if people make money. I work in the oil and gas industry, should I feel guilty that it is lucrative area to work in and that we have a lifestyle and salary that is paid for by gas that is sold to old ladies? I don't really get why anyone making a profit is seen as distasteful. Maybe you should also stop eating any commercial foods, wearing any clothes, drinking tap water (the water companies make a fortune out of you) and the list could go on. I will never really care about this kind of stuff as long as my family and my life are safe.

It is not about companies making a profit, it is about them profiting from illness and suffering. It is actively in their interests for people to need medication, in particular for rich people to need their new and latest medication which can lead to ethical issues when deciding business strategy.

I work in healthcare so am aware this is a double-edged sword.

Drugs take a huge investment to develop, trial and market. Without big pharma doing that we would all be much worse off. Health has been revolutionised by drugs. They make a huge contribution to the economy of a country and individuals in it.

OTOH, they have to make a profit and sometimes lines become blurred. We regularly find inaccuracies and "glossing over" in medical info, there is some evidence of manipulation of trials and evidence. Some medical reps are partisan to the point of ludicrousness and the really pushy one is bane of my life

If we consider that health is a public good, then there are a number of ways to ensure that pharma companies are not purely profit-driven. We do that for other industries, for example, private telecoms and postal companies are under the obligation to provide "universal service" including in areas where it is unprofitable for them to do so. Same for airlines (usually the formerly state-owned ones) - they have to operate unprofitable routes to remote parts of the country in which they are based. Why can't we apply this principle to pharma companies so they have to devote x% of their R&D costs to antibiotics/malaria etc in combination with government subsidies?

YANBU for most drugs

Sayanything
We cant do this because pharma is universal. Postal services and Telecoms are in general to the benefit of that country.
What you would end up with is First World Countries developing drugs that benefit their population and the Third World being left with nothing as they dont have the resources to do this.
Its like Oil, in general where it is controlled by countries it leads to all sort of control issues.