I believe that pharmaceutical companies should produce cheaper drugs that are more readily available to those that need them the most… and as impossible a battle as it may be my audience is the company shareholders/executives/bigwigs. I imagine that the initial indifference to my proposition would gain momentum and become hostile in little or no time. Indifference would lie within their lack of concern for reform on current methods. Hostility would arise from the suggestion that pharmaceuticals should switch from the business model to that of a compassionate one concerned for mankind; for those that could and should be helped so long as necessary means are obtainable.
Were I to make an appeal to reason, it would be shot down as their reasoning is not the same as mine. Were I to utilize shame, the attitude of businessman would shine through. Were I to weave an enargeia, the feelings would be lost to the sternness of capitalism.
Nonetheless, I would indicate that more availability means me more credibility and honor for the company. Nonetheless, I would cast down the wrong done by inaction where action would come with ease and without destructive consequence. Nonetheless, I would let them FEEL the pains of those who must go without.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part I of 2-part comment (due to 4,096 character max):
ReplyDeleteTo start, I like the use of the rhetoric term within this post, which is something I need to work on.
This is a subject that I have done little research on (heard little about) over the past few years, and so indulge within this topic under statements that come more from word of mouth than from positions that represent conditions I am not inclined to validate, nor stand as an authoritative figure on such notions. In other words, reading this may just as likely make you more ignorant of the actuality of the situation, as it can make you more aware.
I can only assume positions taken here represent the anger present in a competitive world, where certain things are held to for the survival of the fittest company.
Onto my ignorance of the situation, word of mouth has brought my understanding of the situation to the notion that the primary person responsible for watching over the pharmaceutical companies, to make sure they practice in ways that are responsible, got a job making a lot more money working for the pharmaceutical companies. So, if true, the one who knows more about it than anyone else, we can assume to work for the side capable of taking loopholes around responsibility, rather than the side that attempts to prevent such from happening.
I was also under the notion that when a new medication came out, a generic form cannot be put on the shelves for 7 years. However, if they find the same drug useful for a very similar condition, they can rename it and the same 7-year condition applies. Yet, I know of at least one extended release medication (XR) that has been on the shelves for 7 years, and still no generic exist. So, this must not be true.
Also needing taken into consideration is the lawsuits that arise from medications leaving people worse off, affecting them in damaging ways. Then, the lawyers get on television and open up your awareness to the limited window of time available to you to act, given you had taken this medication. But, what about the long-term effects that go unnoticed for so long that when something happens, awareness or ability to act doesn’t exist? What about those who do not watch television? ...those who haven’t the means to determine the medications effect on them? I think the tobacco companies choice to not report negative findings found from their very own researchers, and the people they succeeded in silencing (and attempted to silence) takes shape here. How many affected by the tobacco industry got nothing? I am fairly confident that researchers are not required (not inclined) to report results they were not looking for.
But then there are those that cannot afford the appropriate medications out there, and these are medications that end up on the list of those that get pulled from the shelves. Well, in these occurrences (of just as much unknown commonality as is known about the reliability of these statements presented), I guess those that cannot afford the medication are lucky that they were tested on the rich first. Or, were they tested on the poor first, through funding programs or controlled studies requiring a release of responsibility signature? Are those studies requiring a signature the ones you should stay away from? If you buy your meds from Canada to save, does this make you ineligible to the legality of a claim here in America?
Part II of 2-part comment (due to 4,096 character max):
ReplyDeleteAnd on a final statement, what medications out there end up leaving persons requiring continual, perhaps alternate, forms of medication to function properly due to the chemical imbalance (or other condition) it subjected persons (even children) to? If findings ended up suggesting reports that would lead pharmaceutical companies going bankrupt for the damages they have inflicted on a large amount of the population, and in this would lead to a degraded future of medication care for even more people in the future, is it rational to leave those presently suffering within suffering conditions so to prevent even more from suffering in the future?
So, where do I stand out of line here? What have I suggested that makes a good point? As nothing changes, what is the point of even writing this? As this surface is complicated by multiple variables downplaying any further surface-growth rising from this comment, how much effort/force will it take to scatter the possibilities of potential change into conditions of yesterday’s news, yesterday’s pointless fight, yesterday’s ignorance? And with this ignorance, I continue to stand stupefied as another blasphemous beggar for change for the conditions of the many suffering, in ways that irrationally draw upon on the hopes of the helpless; knowing that if the rational way of rebuking this statement isn’t out there, one will soon come to persuade silence, rationally or irrationally (depending on how much energy it takes to deplete the continuance of this “gossip”). Okay, I feel dumb now. That was fun.