Patents on Prescription Drugs

Discussion in 'Consumer Advocacy' started by randomuserhaha, Jan 12, 2005.

  1. Prescription drugs made after 1995 will have a patent and no generic prescription drugs will not be available. News like this makes me hate the more "ordered" and "civilized" first world countries. This is a great shame, a way of genocide where we are building a world filled with rich selfish assholes. Millions will die because of this new patent policy, millions regardless sex, age, race, and circumstances, children will die of cancer, HIV, because the ones in charge now are selfish bastards that should take a visit to hell this very moment.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4148903.stm
     
  2. Jack_Straw2208

    Jack_Straw2208 Senior Member

  3. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Obviously the patent laws need to be reformed...but I do think that companies who invent new pharmaceutical drugs should be entitled to SOME kind of patent or compensation for their efforts. Say, enough to recover the research costs plus a nice profit. Otherwise, there's no incentive for companies to produce new drugs.

    Some ideas I've heard:

    Allow a certain time limit for patents on pharmaceuticals, such as ten years. After that, everyone can produce them.

    Scrap pharmaceutical patents entirely, but allow the inventing company to claim royalties on all similar drugs.
     
  4. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    pharmaceutical companies in almost every country have patents that protect their drugs for 17 years from the time human clinical studies begin. India is following what the rest of the world is doing. Don't let the hype scare you. Patents are GOOD for patients. If every drug was a cheap generic, very few new drugs would be discovered/invented. It cost about 300 million dollars to receive 1 drug approval. Companies will not risk that type of money without any payoff...would you???

    I do think MAJOR reform of the pharmaceutical industry & especially global pharmaceutical pricing is necessary, but patents are not the problem.
     
  5. WynterFrost

    WynterFrost Short Bus Rider

    it takes my dad at least 100$ to fill my drugs.....he bitches....i do too...its not fair...i need them...why do they almost make them unreachable...
     
  6. artful_dodger

    artful_dodger Member

    Limited-time patents are beneficial, but they need to be used rationally.

    For instance, the cancer drug Taxol was developed almost entirely with public funds, first from the US Dept. of Agriculture, then at a public university. But, who owns the patent? Bristol Meyers Squibb.

    In other cases, patents have been extended, for no good legal reason.

    A limited-time patent allows a company to profit from their invention. The expiration of patents means that, eventually, their invention will be less profitable, so they need to continue to innovate.

    I think it's important to remember that the center of patent and also copyright law is the belief that all human knowledge belongs to all humanity. The temporary protections are to allow someone to benefit from their innovation, and to encourage further innovation. But, in the end, the invention must return to the public. People on both sides seem to lose sight of that.

    I think India's new patent law is sensible, and, as long as it is applied sensibly and honestly, it can benefit the people of India.
     
  7. StarFaerie

    StarFaerie Member

    "Obviously the patent laws need to be reformed...but I do think that companies who invent new pharmaceutical drugs should be entitled to SOME kind of patent or compensation for their efforts. Say, enough to recover the research costs plus a nice profit. Otherwise, there's no incentive for companies to produce new drugs."

    NO INCENTIVE???????? God that really burns me up! How about this for incentive: People need medicine!!!!! Gee, I'm sorry, but I don't give a flying shit about whether or not those huge drug corporations make enough profit to satisfy themselves. So basically the only reason the patents are good at all is because those selfish assholes don't care about making medicine for people unless their pockets stay full? Give me a break! Did any of ya'll hear about that kid who died from the flu a year or two ago? That might have been basically local news come to think of it....It was because his parents couldn't afford the prescription for their son!!! Don't sit here and say the patents are good just because it gives those selfish assholes incentive to help people. We need generic drugs!
     
  8. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Drug companies employe thousands and thousands of people...I think you are missing the point. If drugs go generic only, there will be no more new drugs. It cost money to employ thousands of doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and chemists.

    People are also starving, would you suggest that farmers need to quit making money and provide food even cheaper...? What about their families? Its not about being selfish, its about being realistic. Like it or not, workers HAVE to make money.
     
  9. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Your post is completely irrational and based entirely on emotion.

    With that said, do you honestly believe that if people aren't allowed to profit from their work, they will continue to invent new medicines at the same rate that they do today? Of course not. Would YOU work if you weren't being paid?
     
  10. StarFaerie

    StarFaerie Member

    Actually, I volunteer so that's working without money. Besides, so what if it's based on emotion? Do you not blink an eye to find out a child died because of high drug prices? You're going to tell me that profit is more important than human life? And then you're going to tell me I'm the irrational one? I realize that things are never going to change because people "have" to have so much money, but does that mean you guys think it's right? I'm sorry, I don't understand how people can have more sympathy for a large corporation over children who need medicine. It's not about what's actually gonna happen, it's about what's right.
     
  11. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    Ok: Would you volunteer on a full-time basis if you had a family to support?

    Do you not blink an eye to find out a child died because new medicines hadn't been invented because someone like you wanted the patent laws abolished without even considering the consequences?

    Personally I'd rather save millions of lives by allowing for the incentive for the development of new drugs, as opposed to saving a few hundred lives by abolishing patent laws to supposedly lower the costs.

    No it isn't, it's about what's actually going to happen. Why is being practical a bad thing? If companies are not allowed to patent their products, what possible reason would they have for developing them in the first place? Why would they pay their scientists and managers millions of dollars to develop products, just so that they can tell their shareholders "We gave all of your money away, but it's OK because it was the right thing to do"?

    Merck and Pfizer are among the most socially conscious companies I know of. They already give plenty of product away to people who can't afford them. You're damn right I have sympathy for the desire of shareholders to make money.

    You have the luxury of criticizing the people developing the drugs that save millions of lives for not doing it at a loss to themselves. I bet you'd be singing a different tune if you had some disease for which the treatment was inadequate.
     
  12. StarFaerie

    StarFaerie Member

    I have the luxury???? I almost killed myself (and had to be hospitalized) because I couldn't afford my depression medicine! I wouldn't have it now but my mother got it for me. So please, don't talk about things you have NO idea about. I suppose you are coming from the point of view that money is everything eh? Supposedly you say you're coming from the point of view that you want them to make more medicine and of course we can't expect them to do it because they care, oh no, it must make them rich. It would be nice if you'd just respect my feelings on this but I guess you'd rather try and convince me that money is everything. Remember, I just posted my feelings on the subject, you were the one who started up bothering me about it. I admitted I was coming from an emotional standpoint, that was the whole post. I also never said being practical was a bad thing, I have to be practical in my life all the time, I DO have a family. I have to work to make money, the point is I CARE ABOUT PEOPLE SO I VOLUNTEER in my SPARE time. Do you? The whole post was me being angry at selfish drug companies (and I'm sorry, but if you care more about money than people, you're selfish) Are you saying the researchers would get NO money if the medicines were cheaper? Even without them abolishing the patent laws...if they just were less worried about profit? Please. I don't give a flying shit about the rich shareholders so you can stop wasting your time there. I'm not trying to have a debate here. You're wasting your time telling me they have no reason to make medicine if there's no fortune involved because the reason is sick people. If you're okay with poor people dying so rich people can have more medicine well then that's you. (and I'm so glad two out of a lot of companies give away some free drugs, I'm sure it makes a large dent) Just stop bothering me about my feelings on the matter okay? Thanks
     
  13. Kandahar

    Kandahar Banned

    And if we had no patent laws, that medicine probably wouldn't exist at all.

    Obviously you don't know the first thing about economics.

    Actually it was you who responded to me in your first post on this thread.

    Yes. Now suppose you're a medical researcher with a family to support. Do you think you should be EXPECTED to volunteer at your job for no pay whatsoever, when you can find another company willing to pay you $70K per year?

    And if you think that abolishing patent laws would be a good thing for "the people", you're completely delusional.

    That's correct. Either they'd be expected to volunteer for no pay whatsoever, or they'd get paid for a little while and then their company would go bankrupt because it had no revenue.

    You do realize that the reason people start companies or invest in companies is to make money, right?

    Then why don't YOU do something about it? Why don't you go to graduate school, get a master's degree in biochemistry, and work for free for the rest of your life developing new drugs? (Don't worry, I'm sure you won't need any money your entire life) Why should you expect these companies to do the same thing if you are unwilling to do it yourself?

    It's becoming pretty clear to me that you have no interest in helping the sick or the poor. You are only motivated out of resentment for the wealthy.

    All medicines were expensive at one point. As new medicines are developed, old ones become cheaper. If patent laws are abolished, there will be no new medicines.

    Umm, well they are two of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world...

    No. You can't just post something like that on a public forum and expect everyone else to not point out the obvious logical flaws in your argument.

    If you were rational, you might examine my post and at least see some faults in your own argument, even if you weren't willing to concede the issue. Instead, I have a feeling you'll just take personal offense to it. Oh well.
     
  14. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Instead of getting angry, I wish you would consider expanding on your thoughts...

    I can't see where your logic would end. People can't afford shoes, should they be free. People can't afford food, should it be free. Children go without coats, should they be free. etc, etc, etc.

    People should be responsible for themselves first, then the need for charity would almost disapear, wouldn't it? I work for a pharmacy. I am by no means rich, in fact, I am quite poor and in much debt. I work very hard for the money I earn. Just because it is healthcare, does that mean there should be no profit? Every major drug company gives free medications to the indigent who make "too much money" to qualify for medicaid, but are still poor. I would argue that we need to institute globally fair prices for drugs, instead of the USA paying the majority of the cost, but I would not want the drug companies to not be profitable. It is estimated that over 50% of us would not be alive today were it not for modern medicine. The "high cost" of prescriptions still totals less than 15% of all healthcare costs in the USA, and 46% of Americans are on a daily drug! You are also blatantly ignoring the cost savings of prescriptions. How many months of your "expensive" antidepressant (that keeps you from killing yourself!!! How do you quantify the value of that!!!) can you buy vs a three week inpatient stay at a mental hospital for suicide attempt? You could buy several years worth of medication!!!

    The cost of one heart attack averages over $30,000. Cholesterol medication averages $100 per month. While the medication is indeed expensive, you would have to take it for about 25 years to have exceeded the cost of one heart attack that the medication (hopefully) prevented! It is important to look at the total picture when considering healthcare "costs."

    Please stop with the mellodrama and defensiveness. If you don't want to have a discussion, why do you come to a forum? It's okay to disagree, and its ok to be right, wrong or indifferent. It is not okay, IMO, to respond so juvenile-like and innapropriately.
     
  15. StarFaerie

    StarFaerie Member

    Fine, lets start making kids pay to go to school cause how can we expect people to become teachers unless they can make more money. Does that sound stupid? Of course. Now, I BELIEVE medicine should be a government thing like schools, is education more important than life? Healthcare in all it's forms should NOT be a profit making organization, that's what I feel, I'm sorry I don't need a bunch of reasons why it won't happen ok? If we can make sure everyone has an education we should be able to make sure everyone has medicine. I'm talking about medicine, not shoes or whatever you were talking about....if you don't know the difference between shoes and medicine then we are VERY far from understanding each other... plus I don't know what on earth you mean about food, they have WIC and food stamps and all kinds of things. And yea maybe I DO think no child should go without the things they need. What about it? Anybody with a heart should FEEL that kids should have what they need. I'm sorry I'm not prepared to have a drawn out conversation on the subject, but you guys need to realize that it's not all black and white. You're not automatically the expert on what's ACTUALLY best for everyone just because you know a little about economics. Plus, it's real easy to attack someone's post when they admit it's all about how they feel on the subject huh?

    I'm sorry if you think I'm melodramatic or whatever, but I just don't like kandahar. All he ever writes about is how much sympathy he has for corporations and business owners and basically everyone BUT the little man. (that I've seen) It wouldn't matter if I had all the facts in the world to throw in his face...just like it doesn't matter how much he tried to convince me. You can say whatever you like about me. I'm not here to be friends with people who want to try and make me feel stupid because I believe medicine shouldn't be a profit making thing. I live in the South, I talk to people like that in real life every day. Call that melodramatic if you like lol.


    "How many months of your "expensive" antidepressant (that keeps you from killing yourself!!! How do you quantify the value of that!!!) can you buy vs a three week inpatient stay at a mental hospital for suicide attempt? You could buy several years worth of medication!!!"

    Um lets see, I haven't paid for the hospital visit and probably won't be able to. And when you just don't have the money you just don't have the money, maybe you don't know about that, I don't know your story. I have to take care of a son, he comes first. That was a little judgemental by the way. Of course you did make a good point, it ends up costing everyone more when medicine is too expensive. I noticed that kandahar didn't comment on the fact that I have a reason to feel so strongly on the subject...commented on everything else though lol
     
  16. PhotoGra1

    PhotoGra1 Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    I agree that medication is too expensive. I think the problem is the global pricing system of pharmaceuticals, more than the pharmaceutical industry.

    I agree that its not black and white. I work in a pharmacy. I am by no way, shape or form rich. I see people EVERYDAY who can't afford their medication, and I do think something needs to be done about it. I know very little about economics. What I do know is that profit IS a NECESSARY evil. My point was basically the same as yours, its not black and white...

    People do need access to healthcare and medications, I agree. Corporations need to make money in order to pay employees and invest in research and development.

    In response to WIC and foodstamps, we also have medicaid. In response to public schools, they speak for themselves! It is NEVER a good idea to have the government exclusively run a program. If education is not a good enough example for you, look at public housing and medicare!!!
     
  17. alB

    alB Member

    How about patents for real new drugs only? Years ago, a company made an antihistamine called generically chlorpheniramine maleate. They got a patent, I can understand that. Another company then made brompheniramine maleate and also got a patent. If you have access to a copy of the periodic table of elements, check out the relationship of chlorine and bromine. All the second company had to do was to ensure that the change was safe and more effective than a placebo. Their R&D was minimal. Now, at that time, doctors received one semester of pharmacology (this was when I was young so it is ancient history). Where did they get most of their information on new drugs? Articles and advertising in medical journals. Also I'm old enough to remember when the pharmaceutical industry screamed blue murder, whined and cried that they'd all go out of business if generic drugs were even allowed. Years later, lo and behold, drug companies are among the most profitable of investments (except for those big on anti-arthritics of late.)

    As far as gov't run programs go, they can and have done quite well when properly funded and planned. Chicago's public housing was originally designed to provide low-income working people with decent housing and it succeeded in doing so. For reasons probably best known to the real estate industry (just thought I'd throw in a little conspiracy theory to spice things up), public housing was changed in that there would no longer be screening of tenants which resulted in public housing made the dumping ground for all manner of social problems without being given the wherewithal to properly address those problems (in this case, job training, psychological counselling, etc). Medicare, regardless of its funding problems has provided millions of America's elderly with medical care they would otherwise not have received. Check out the cost of a private health insurance policy for a person 64 years old in most of the US. Now compare that with the cost of Medicare parts A & B. Even if you add a Medicare supplement plan, it's likely far cheaper in most US cities (I don't know about costs in rural areas) for the 65 year old going with the gov't plan than for the 64 year old going with private industry.
     

Share This Page


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice