Pharmaceutical companies are dependent upon the profits generated by the sales o

Question

Pharmaceutical companies are dependent upon the profits generated by the sales of their products to satisfy investors and fund the research and development of new products.   Only one out of every 15,000 substances that are researched will eventually become medicine. This end result may occur after approximately 15 years and $1.5 billion in associated costs.

However, these same pharmaceutical companies are hiking prices to unprecedented levels in some cases.

“Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection. The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.” New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015

Some price increases might be attributed to shortages, but others have resulted from strategic purchases of older drugs and converting them into “high-priced ‘specialty drugs.’”  New York Times, Sept. 20, 2015

Contrast the history of penicillin, arguably the most life-saving drug of the last century. The pharmacist Sir Alexander Fleming not only discovered penicillin – the antibiotic that has saved millions of lives – but also ensured that it was freely available to as much of the world’s population as possible. Fleming could have become a very wealthy man if he patented penicillin, but he understood the drug’s potential to overcome diseases such as syphilis, gangrene and tuberculosis meant it had to be released into the world to serve the greater good. On the eve of World War II, he transferred the patents to the US and UK governments, which were able to mass-produce penicillin in time to treat many of the wounded.

Unlike other developed countries, the United States allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to set drug prices. In some cases for rare diseases, there is only one medication available, and competition is thwarted by patent regulation.

In the article, Determining Value and Price in Health Care, Austin Frakt writes: “It’s hard to argue with the notion that how much we pay for a drug should be related to the value it provides. Hard to argue, that is, until you try to pin down whose value counts, what value means, or how much to pay for it.”

When we are dealing with human life and death, should pharmaceutical companies be able to set their own prices?   Should the government step in? Should the government grant patent protection to life-saving medication? Or should such medication be part of the intellectual public domain to help the most people (as in the case of penicillin)? How would ethicists approach this issue from a utilitarian, deontological or ethic of care perspective? How would economist Milton Friedman respond to the issue of outrageous drug prices?

Explanation / Answer

Answers:

Pharmaceutical companies to fix prices:

The pharmaceutical companies can be left with setting prices on the medicines. This is because it involves huge amount of costs to develop a new product & it is not an easy task. The pharmaceutical companies must perform lot of clinical trials to ensure safety & efficacy of the medicine. The medicine must also be manufactured with a standard to ensure that the patients get cured from the disease. Hence I personally feel that the prices fixed by the companies are accurate & the responsibility can be given to the pharmaceutical companies itself.

Patents on life saving drugs should be bypassed:

By bypassing of patents we mean that complete circumvent where it combines a pooling system with financial incentives. Patents refer to exclusive monopoly right over a particular drug that extends for 20 years. More importantly the definition of life saving drugs is widely accepted by scientific community curing or reducing the effects of illnesses if untreated would result in death.

Patents don’t cost lives. They save many. Patent system has the effect of stifling R&D, preventing innovation & restricting information flow. Patent protection is to justified on the grounds that negative effect of monopoly rights will be outweighed by incentive for creative activity.

Should medication be part of intellectual public domain?

The task with respect to pharmaceutical products is to balance claims to intellectual property rights against the rights to access to needed medicines. The economic argument is unless the companies can make profits from their research in discovering, developing & producing drugs, they will not produce them is only a partial defense of existing patent system & one that focuses only on property rights. It is only a partial defense, because patent is not only the way of either intellectual property or of guaranteeing profits

In deontological approach, outcomes may not justify the means to achieve while in utilitarian approach, outcomes determine the means & benefit expected for greatest number. In brief, deontology is patient centered whereas utilitarianism is society centered. In utilitarianism approach decision arrived for each patient is confronted with measurement of balance of benefits & harms. Whereas in case of deontology, the outcome may be beneficial for the individual but not for the society.

To conclude the balance between these two approaches could bring better harmony & justice to medical practice.

For view on Friedman, don’t get information from any sources.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.