Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
It definitely sounds like there was a little bit of vengeance in that decision. The ideal reaction wouldn't include the removal of a drug that the Thai government hadn't already stolen. But then, in this situation, I'm not sure I can blame them all that much for acting less than ideally - large-scale robbery does tend to raise tempers.
And without treading too much onto a slippery slope argument - the Thai government already decided that it's okay to break patents in response to exorbitant prices, what's the remaining unshakeable moral principle that prevents them from breaking patents for expensive prices? premium prices? more-than-dirt-cheap prices? Is the arthritis patent really perfectly safe?
|
These are good and important questions. I believe that the WTO grants governments the power to break a patent, but I'm still fuzzy on the particular protocols involved, which can be blamed on the media who reported on this very important story. According to the internets, the procedure is laid out in the
Doha Declaration. Unfortunately, there is little information I can find on who is allowed to make the determination as to when and why a patent can be broken. The language is vague enough to where it could legally be taken advantage of (like Abbott in Brazil, where Abbott is taking a loss trying to give AIDS medicine to Brazilians).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I agree. And businesses that can afford to contribute to effective charities or lower huge prices without endangering the bottom line should do so. Companies that can and don't, have room for ethical growth.
|
Well put. I couldn't agree more.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
But as for governments that compel businesses to attain this level of ethics through patent-breaking or punitive fines or what have you... I don't consider those governments very ethical, either. I place them on the same level as governments who would arrest adults for binge drinking or risky sexual practices - they're busybody governments, sticking the legal nose where it doesn't belong. To some extent - and what extent? therein lies the debate - governments should allow both citizens and businesses to behave unethically. Otherwise, we've got the incoherent notion of liberty as "the freedom to do that which is right", and I had enough of that idea at Hillsdale, thankyouverymuch.
'Course, public funding for pharmaceutical research just mucks it all up...
|
Ah, but this isn't as simple as a government trying to force ethical behavior. People are dying, and by the truckload. This should, first and foremost, be about saving lives. All other considerations, though important, are tertiary.