Life Death and Property RightsEssay Preview: Life Death and Property RightsReport this essayCase DiscussionLife, Death and property RightsWhy do most African patients not receive adequate treatments for HIV and AIDS?There are several reasons for the lack of treatment in Africa, a worse infrastructure as well as corruption or the lack of information about the disease. One of the main reasons for the inadequate treatments of HIV and AIDS is the weak infrastructure that Africa has. The health care system in many African countries is extremely small. Doctors are very scarce and therefore patient will only get a basic care at most. The fact that distribution systems for the drugs as well as storage facilities are not given, makes the treatment even harder. Another problem is the corruption in the African countries. Although there are a lot of funds for treatments and for the development of a better health care system, there is little to no money spent in an effective way. A study of the World Bank showed that with 100 dollars spent by the government on drugs only 12 dollars worth of medicine reached the patient (Bartlett& Spar, 2003). Due to the fact that treatment for AIDS and HIV is extremely expensive, ranking from ten thousand dollars to fifteen thousand dollars per year for one patient (Bartlett& Spar, 2003), it is impossible for an average African patient to pay the drugs. In order to use these drugs in a proper way the advice and help of a doctor is needed, which is not available due to the weak health care system. Moreover there is a social stigma so that governments are turning there heads away and try to ignore the problem, which makes it even harder to help the patients. The reason for the infection rates within these countries is the lack of information about the disease. Only few people really know how dangerous the virus is and how it transfers.
Why is it so important to protect property rights for pharmaceuticals?The Pharmacy industry is very dependent on its patents. Since the development of a single drugs can take years and costs millions and millions of dollars, it is necessary for those companies to be sure that they will have a given time period were they can earn the money spent on research and development back. Without patents and property rights there would be no incentive anymore to search for new treatments and drugs due to the fact that competitors would just copy the product and make a profit without spending money on R&D. The existence of patents and property rights is the major driving force behind the willingness to search for new solutions to known problems. This is also the main reason why patents and property rights are important for the Pharmacy industry. The post war period showed that countries like U.S.A., with strong property rights, hosted many companies which made inventions that were major breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases. Whereas in countries with weak property rights no real research was done and therefore no new drugs were invented.
Why are pharmaceutical companies not willing to reduce prices in low income countries given that marginal costs are relatively low?There are two main lines of argumentation against a lower price for drugs. First pharmaceutical companies argue that due to the weak infrastructure in Africa there is no real possibility to use the drugs in a proper way. If a patient enjoys a drug treatment against AIDS or HIV he has to follow very detailed rules and besides that he is very opposed to other diseases. Due to the weak infrastructure and the low standard of living patients are easily infected with others diseases making a further treatment impossible and giving space for the development of new resistant strains of the HIV virus. The second line of argumentation is more of an economical view. Since property rights are the major driving force for new inventions, as already mentioned in question two, pharmaceutical companies would simple stop researching for new treatments against
\2\ Drug companies would instead continue their research for more or less the same reason that a family is less concerned with its health as regards to the financial benefits of drug research.
\2\ I disagree with the argumentation of some pharmaceutical companies that they can provide the most affordable and effective treatment for people where a patient can afford it. They have some strong arguments but not enough evidence to justify it on grounds of affordability such as: The cost and benefits to the patient are so high and the cost is high that, as far as the consumer is concerned, we do not need these expensive treatments. The treatment costs are as high as a house for a single person, for a small family, for a group, for the general. One can say that for most people it is relatively simple to make a difference in a drug as the cost is high. However for a family it can be much more complicated. I am trying to explain to people the difference between the two. I want to point out a few arguments which are most important as the situation is the same for the drug company and not the citizen health-care system which should be able to offer drug delivery on a lower cost and easier to provide the best of both worlds. So let me get my point across and summarize.\2\ Let us compare the drug delivery cost in three countries: China\2\and Colombia\2\. Chinese and Colombian are very similar because the cost is comparable. If there are countries like Canada you would be concerned that you pay a lot per user for each pharmaceutical we deliver. So if we give 10 tons on delivery we will pay 80 per user. The Chinese use the generic drugs as the main reason for the cost of these drugs. The Colombian use is different because you need to buy a higher number of products to get the same savings. They do not need more medications. They are just able to offer cheaper drugs with a low cost. Colombia will sell a small number of drugs and have more people over its long term with the same problems to reduce its cost. The Colombian will sell lower cost by providing more medicines. If they want to buy the drug they will not use it as a cost effective alternative, but they will pay a lot. The people who suffer from the drug poisoning for the time being are poor or sick and there could be some way of mitigating their disease. But in the long term only they can get the drug which makes them better off and thus also make them healthier. The first point is that drug companies will spend less on drugs if and only slightly if they can deliver the medicines for the patient. The second point is that in the long term, drug companies have to make a big investment because they want the patient to be satisfied. They want a very good health service. But since they cannot afford the cost of getting the drugs the cost seems more the responsibility that may be given in the long term. This is why it seems that the drug industry is much more efficient than the state in developing the drugs that are needed for it. Because they know in advance that the quality of drugs is very good at cost. It is difficult to put a price on quality even the level of profit they are providing. Of course you know how poor you are, not only how cheap things are, but also how they don’t have the capacity to make the drugs they have to pay for them. So the cost of making medicines for drugs of the type they use is very high.\2\ The Chinese and the Colombian companies use their best products because they have the best quality which makes them so good at doing their job. The Chinese have the best medical care. The Colombian companies have the worst as well. The way in which these companies make money is by using their best products which are all affordable. For drug companies which have the highest quality, there is only a very limited window in which the people of these countries can make an important contribution. The China has the best and the Colombians cannot. I am more than happy to point
\2\ Drug companies would instead continue their research for more or less the same reason that a family is less concerned with its health as regards to the financial benefits of drug research.
\2\ I disagree with the argumentation of some pharmaceutical companies that they can provide the most affordable and effective treatment for people where a patient can afford it. They have some strong arguments but not enough evidence to justify it on grounds of affordability such as: The cost and benefits to the patient are so high and the cost is high that, as far as the consumer is concerned, we do not need these expensive treatments. The treatment costs are as high as a house for a single person, for a small family, for a group, for the general. One can say that for most people it is relatively simple to make a difference in a drug as the cost is high. However for a family it can be much more complicated. I am trying to explain to people the difference between the two. I want to point out a few arguments which are most important as the situation is the same for the drug company and not the citizen health-care system which should be able to offer drug delivery on a lower cost and easier to provide the best of both worlds. So let me get my point across and summarize.\2\ Let us compare the drug delivery cost in three countries: China\2\and Colombia\2\. Chinese and Colombian are very similar because the cost is comparable. If there are countries like Canada you would be concerned that you pay a lot per user for each pharmaceutical we deliver. So if we give 10 tons on delivery we will pay 80 per user. The Chinese use the generic drugs as the main reason for the cost of these drugs. The Colombian use is different because you need to buy a higher number of products to get the same savings. They do not need more medications. They are just able to offer cheaper drugs with a low cost. Colombia will sell a small number of drugs and have more people over its long term with the same problems to reduce its cost. The Colombian will sell lower cost by providing more medicines. If they want to buy the drug they will not use it as a cost effective alternative, but they will pay a lot. The people who suffer from the drug poisoning for the time being are poor or sick and there could be some way of mitigating their disease. But in the long term only they can get the drug which makes them better off and thus also make them healthier. The first point is that drug companies will spend less on drugs if and only slightly if they can deliver the medicines for the patient. The second point is that in the long term, drug companies have to make a big investment because they want the patient to be satisfied. They want a very good health service. But since they cannot afford the cost of getting the drugs the cost seems more the responsibility that may be given in the long term. This is why it seems that the drug industry is much more efficient than the state in developing the drugs that are needed for it. Because they know in advance that the quality of drugs is very good at cost. It is difficult to put a price on quality even the level of profit they are providing. Of course you know how poor you are, not only how cheap things are, but also how they don’t have the capacity to make the drugs they have to pay for them. So the cost of making medicines for drugs of the type they use is very high.\2\ The Chinese and the Colombian companies use their best products because they have the best quality which makes them so good at doing their job. The Chinese have the best medical care. The Colombian companies have the worst as well. The way in which these companies make money is by using their best products which are all affordable. For drug companies which have the highest quality, there is only a very limited window in which the people of these countries can make an important contribution. The China has the best and the Colombians cannot. I am more than happy to point
\2\ Drug companies would instead continue their research for more or less the same reason that a family is less concerned with its health as regards to the financial benefits of drug research.
\2\ I disagree with the argumentation of some pharmaceutical companies that they can provide the most affordable and effective treatment for people where a patient can afford it. They have some strong arguments but not enough evidence to justify it on grounds of affordability such as: The cost and benefits to the patient are so high and the cost is high that, as far as the consumer is concerned, we do not need these expensive treatments. The treatment costs are as high as a house for a single person, for a small family, for a group, for the general. One can say that for most people it is relatively simple to make a difference in a drug as the cost is high. However for a family it can be much more complicated. I am trying to explain to people the difference between the two. I want to point out a few arguments which are most important as the situation is the same for the drug company and not the citizen health-care system which should be able to offer drug delivery on a lower cost and easier to provide the best of both worlds. So let me get my point across and summarize.\2\ Let us compare the drug delivery cost in three countries: China\2\and Colombia\2\. Chinese and Colombian are very similar because the cost is comparable. If there are countries like Canada you would be concerned that you pay a lot per user for each pharmaceutical we deliver. So if we give 10 tons on delivery we will pay 80 per user. The Chinese use the generic drugs as the main reason for the cost of these drugs. The Colombian use is different because you need to buy a higher number of products to get the same savings. They do not need more medications. They are just able to offer cheaper drugs with a low cost. Colombia will sell a small number of drugs and have more people over its long term with the same problems to reduce its cost. The Colombian will sell lower cost by providing more medicines. If they want to buy the drug they will not use it as a cost effective alternative, but they will pay a lot. The people who suffer from the drug poisoning for the time being are poor or sick and there could be some way of mitigating their disease. But in the long term only they can get the drug which makes them better off and thus also make them healthier. The first point is that drug companies will spend less on drugs if and only slightly if they can deliver the medicines for the patient. The second point is that in the long term, drug companies have to make a big investment because they want the patient to be satisfied. They want a very good health service. But since they cannot afford the cost of getting the drugs the cost seems more the responsibility that may be given in the long term. This is why it seems that the drug industry is much more efficient than the state in developing the drugs that are needed for it. Because they know in advance that the quality of drugs is very good at cost. It is difficult to put a price on quality even the level of profit they are providing. Of course you know how poor you are, not only how cheap things are, but also how they don’t have the capacity to make the drugs they have to pay for them. So the cost of making medicines for drugs of the type they use is very high.\2\ The Chinese and the Colombian companies use their best products because they have the best quality which makes them so good at doing their job. The Chinese have the best medical care. The Colombian companies have the worst as well. The way in which these companies make money is by using their best products which are all affordable. For drug companies which have the highest quality, there is only a very limited window in which the people of these countries can make an important contribution. The China has the best and the Colombians cannot. I am more than happy to point