Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashishgandhi | Hacker News Reader

I don't believe the right answer to solving the cost problem is stealing (super) costly inventions. Cheaper and more widely accessible healthcare would probably be the more apt choice if you ask me. Debate about models such as free public healthcare, compulsory insurance, compulsory insurance where the government pays the difference that the less wealthy can't make up for, etc. would be more apt I feel. Also discussion about how to bring down cost of research can be fruitful.

But without the incentive to invest in the huge cost involved with discovering drugs, you will have nothing to look at the other side, glass or no glass.

View on HN

The only possible incentive is money?

I think you're selling humanity short. There are plenty of ways to have society prioritize researching drug therapies for different diseases that don't hinge on reaping massive profit on the sales of the drug. See: public funding. I don't necessarily mean that through government/taxes, but it should certainly be an option.

The NSF funds a LOT of public university research in medicine. So do the drug companies.

Major drug companies fun a lot of drug trials, but they buy most drug research. That might seem like the same thing to US but if your country does not feel the need for FDA style drug testing you may not feel there is any need to cut them into the game.

I concede to your superior argument. There is a better way to look at this topic but I still don't like the crippling debt cancer treatment leaves with families. Though stealing is a strong word, I'd use copying.

It is in fact stealing, just as "copying" a song is stealing (I know the HN audience won't like that!). "Copying" software is stealing it. Using a euphamism to alleviate your guilt regarding a crime is just self delusion. And I realize this is a difficult subject, and I myself lost a brother to cancer, but the fact is that stealing actually hurts cancer victims in the long run. You might help a few cancer victims right now with some cheaper pills, but what about the thousands or millions in the future who lose out due to the lesser research. And honestly, this pharmasutical giant in India is really just looking at a new way to make money and get some great press. And it's obviously working.

US law distinguishes theft from copyright infringement, not the audience.

It is in fact stealing, just as "copying" a song is stealing (I know the HN audience won't like that!). "Copying" software is stealing it.

This is incorrect. And you're making the same mistake as the one you point out in your next sentence. Using an euphemism to simplify a complex ethical question (possibly incorrectly).

According to this [1] theft involves a component of denying another person with rightful possession of that property its use. When dealing with ideas (and software, algorithms, math etc., etc.) we're dealing with new ethical questions that we shouldn't hurry up and sweep under the carpet by pigeonholing into our previously inadequate understanding of ethics. Doubly so when it deals with life and death as in the case of drug patents.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Elements

We all can take a lesson or two from Dr. Jonas Salk.

A model of selfless research may be appealing to a few individuals, but to get the large amount of research, testing etc. involved in modern medicine, you need an army of professionals. And no money==no army

Reply on news.ycombinator.com