In everyday discourse, and when the question is framed explicitly enough, it is clear that a life is of incalculable value. Peter Singer's famous Famine, Affluence, and Morality contains perhaps the best way of illustrating this: if I were to walk by a pond in an expensive suit, and a baby were drowning in it, it would be a terrible moral wrong for me to keep walking.
But, and as Singer points out, we routinely make decisions that violate this principle.
If a doctor unplugs a patient because it is too expensive to continue treating her, it is a terrible moral wrong. When a drug is patented and kept away from thousands who need it, it is a similar crime. In 2007 former President Lula of Brazil commented on Merck's attempt to price AIDS medication at $1.10 instead of $0.45, saying that from an 'ethical point of view the price difference is grotesque', and that it implied 'a sick Brazilian is inferior'.
But what about more mundane patents, ones with similar potential to save lives, albeit in less direct ways? Take, for example, the patenting of car parts designed to make driving safer. In 2009, 34 thousand people in the US died in car crashes. Improvements in car safety certainly play a role in this figure: in 1990, 11 thousand more people died in crashes. When a company develops a new braking system, it is granted an immediate monopoly and other companies are kept away. People die because of this, yet it is a matter that is hardly given a second thought in policy discussions.
Patents, to be sure, are designed to encourage innovation. That is why we give them to both drug companies and car companies. But at the ragged edge, when the continued existence of a patent costs lives every day, governments like Lula’s step in to put a damper on human costs: why, then, with drugs and not cars?
The simple answer to this question is visibility: the connection between better brakes and fewer deaths is less direct, in some intuitive way, than the connection between drugs and deaths. This should mean nothing, though, for policy.
As I see it, cars and drugs are no different. The goal of government, on a basic level, is to prevent its people from being harmed. Patents on cars and drugs cost lives, and so governments ought to intervene on both counts.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality: http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
Data on Automobile Fatalities: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
Lula on AIDS Medication: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6626073.stm
1 comment:
As unfortunate as it may be, we do not live in a world were what you suggest is possible. As nice as it sounds to say that companies have an obligation to give away their products for free, or even a reduced price, because they help humanity and save lives, it is not practical in the slightest.
You say, “The goal of government, on a basic level, is to prevent its people from being harmed.” This statement is true, however it is a huge stretch to say that the government should involve itself into the private sector to such a degree to make them give away products at a reduced profit. It is absolutely not the governments job to step into private companies and tell them how to run their business. If they were to step into the biotech sector or the automotive sector of the economy and force these companies to reduce their profits no one would work or further research in these fields. As pessimistic as it is, a lot of the people working in these areas do so to earn money. They do their research not just to help the sick and injured but also to earn a substantial amount of money. IF you take away the money they can earn by reducing the companies profit, there would be no reason for individuals to further research. From a pragmatic standpoint why would you work for years on a product, to make no money off it and not be able to support yourself or your family? The only way to further research and technology, not just in biotech but in every industry, is to allow patents to be made and to allow for profit to be made.
With this being said one can make the argument that the company itself should sell its products at a reasonable rate and try and benefit humanity and keep its users safe. However no company should be forced into doing this. In my opinion they should feel the moral obligation to reduce their profit for the greater good, but once again, it is not at all the governments role to force them to do this.
Post a Comment