[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Ethics question... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/6/2016 5:10:20 PM EDT
|
Someone goes overseas to buy at least one year's supply of a generic prescription medication. In the US, it would cost over $750k for a year's supply of that medication. The overseas generic would cost under $500. They bring the medication back into the US.
Here are some situations. Situation 1: They bring back the drugs for their own use. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Poll Inbound! ETA: Would your answers change if the figures were different? |
|
Situation 1:
They bring back the drugs for their own use. I have no problem with that. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. As in "Hey, Bill, since you're going into Mexico, would you bring me back some (insert drug here)? Here's 50 bucks for it". If so, then I have no problem with it. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Same as #2. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Nope...they just became a drug dealer. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Same as #4. |
|
Quoted:
As an example, Daraprim is around $75,000 a month. It can be purchased in India between 4 and 10 cents a pill, versus around $750 a pill in the US. Quoted:
Quoted:
No way you are going to be able to buy $750k of meds for $500 dollars overseas in the first place. As an example, Daraprim is around $75,000 a month. It can be purchased in India between 4 and 10 cents a pill, versus around $750 a pill in the US. That is pretty obscene. |
|
Quoted:
Situation 1: They bring back the drugs for their own use. I have no problem with that. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. As in "Hey, Bill, since you're going into Mexico, would you bring me back some (insert drug here)? Here's 50 bucks for it". If so, then I have no problem with it. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Same as #2. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Nope...they just became a drug dealer. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Same as #4. I'll go along with this. |
|
Yeah,
I would honestly have problems prosecuting on any of those scenarios. My only concern would be someone unknowingly bringing back 3000 doses of something very life critical, but winding up being made from street chalk and floor sweepings. That's the only reason I can argue for government involvement in those activities. |
|
Quoted:
Situation 1: They bring back the drugs for their own use. I have no problem with that. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. As in "Hey, Bill, since you're going into Mexico, would you bring me back some (insert drug here)? Here's 50 bucks for it". If so, then I have no problem with it. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Same as #2. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Nope...they just became a drug dealer. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Same as #4. I disagree with you on number 4 - Supposed I bought the drugs for a dear friend or suppose a local disease support group had one member get stuff for another member, |
|
Quoted:
Situation 1: They bring back the drugs for their own use. I have no problem with that. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. As in "Hey, Bill, since you're going into Mexico, would you bring me back some (insert drug here)? Here's 50 bucks for it". If so, then I have no problem with it. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Same as #2. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Nope...they just became a drug dealer. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Same as #4. I disagree with you on 4 and 5. There is NO good reason the fed gov should have the market cornered on Rx drug distribution. If your doctor says you need it, you should be able to obtain it through whatever distribution network you choose. If my next door neighbor has a pantload of phenergan and I'm feeling queasy, I should be able to buy it off of him\her, even if they want to charge me a premium for the transaction above their cost. Hell, I shouldn't even *need* a prescription if I'm willing to chance it. Of course, all of the above assumes we abolish EMTALA. |
|
Guilty on ALL counts.
If property rights such as patents aren't upheld, how can companies justify spending millions on drug development, AND BILLIONS ON FDA APPROVAL, to get us the lifesaving drugs we depend on? Are they just supposed to do it out of the goodness of their hearts? |
|
Quoted:
I disagree with you on number 4 - Supposed I bought the drugs for a dear friend or suppose a local disease support group had one member get stuff for another member, Quoted:
Quoted:
Situation 1: They bring back the drugs for their own use. I have no problem with that. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 2: They bring back the drugs for a friend or a family member to use. As in "Hey, Bill, since you're going into Mexico, would you bring me back some (insert drug here)? Here's 50 bucks for it". If so, then I have no problem with it. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 3: They bring back the drugs for multiple friends and/or family members to use. Same as #2. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 4: They bring back the drugs to sell them for cost. Nope...they just became a drug dealer. Should they be charged criminally? Should they be liable to a civil judgement? Should something else be done to them? Should nothing be done to them? Situation 5: They bring back the drugs to sell them for a profit. Same as #4. I disagree with you on number 4 - Supposed I bought the drugs for a dear friend or suppose a local disease support group had one member get stuff for another member, To me, that would fall under #2. The keyword is SELL. If a gift, or paid for by the recipient ahead of time, then I think it's good to go. If you pay for the drugs, then sell them, even for cost, then no. |
|
Quoted:
What's unethical is the weaponized protectionist laws that make the price disparity so great in the first place. There has to be some reward for spending the cash it takes to develop these drugs. Maybe not a 17 year patent, but enough to at least recoup the costs. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, I would honestly have problems prosecuting on any of those scenarios. My only concern would be someone unknowingly bringing back 3000 doses of something very life critical, but winding up being made from street chalk and floor sweepings. That's the only reason I can argue for government involvement in those activities. Why should someone be penalized for taking their chances with off shore medication, vs not getting the medication that they can't afford. The FDA should be abolished, and let the free market decide if they like medications. If someone knowingly sells rat poison as the cure for cancer, they will be sued and lose everything and be put in prison. But if a company does reasonable clinical trials and they have something that shows promise, and I am terminal, then let me try it. F the Washington Cartel. |
|
Quoted:
There has to be some reward for spending the cash it takes to develop these drugs. Maybe not a 17 year patent, but enough to at least recoup the costs. Quoted:
Quoted:
What's unethical is the weaponized protectionist laws that make the price disparity so great in the first place. There has to be some reward for spending the cash it takes to develop these drugs. Maybe not a 17 year patent, but enough to at least recoup the costs. Agree. Pharma is great. BIGPharma is not. IIRC patents are in the original text of the Constitution. |
|
Quoted:
What I want to know, is the $75,000 drug that's pennies in India being ripped off in India? Or have patents expired and unlike every other good or service that can be purchased from overseas, there's some protectionist law preventing it's import? Daraprim's patent expired in 1953 |
|
Quoted:
There has to be some reward for spending the cash it takes to develop these drugs. Maybe not a 17 year patent, but enough to at least recoup the costs. Quoted:
Quoted:
What's unethical is the weaponized protectionist laws that make the price disparity so great in the first place. There has to be some reward for spending the cash it takes to develop these drugs. Maybe not a 17 year patent, but enough to at least recoup the costs. Agreed but a lot of that cost is associated with getting FDA approval. There are drugs that are available overseas that are not available in the US due to FDA issues. Remove the unconstitutional FDA, keep the patents and you will have cheaper meds and lower cost. |
|
Quoted:
Daraprim's patent expired in 1953 Quoted:
Quoted:
What I want to know, is the $75,000 drug that's pennies in India being ripped off in India? Or have patents expired and unlike every other good or service that can be purchased from overseas, there's some protectionist law preventing it's import? Daraprim's patent expired in 1953 How does Turing Pharm have "marketing rights" then? Why doesn't a competitor bring a lower cost generic to market? |
|
Quoted:
How does Turing Pharm have "marketing rights" then? Why doesn't a competitor bring a lower cost generic to market? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I want to know, is the $75,000 drug that's pennies in India being ripped off in India? Or have patents expired and unlike every other good or service that can be purchased from overseas, there's some protectionist law preventing it's import? Daraprim's patent expired in 1953 How does Turing Pharm have "marketing rights" then? Why doesn't a competitor bring a lower cost generic to market? Incredibly small market. No real money in a generic, which would have to go through abbreviated FDA testing again, at about ~3 and a half years to get to market. Turing consolidated all distribution to a closed system to allow them to jack the price up and make it nearly impossible to get sample for reverse engineering. |
|
Quoted:
Incredibly small market. No real money in a generic, which would have to go through abbreviated FDA testing again, at about ~3 and a half years to get to market. Turing consolidated all distribution to a closed system to allow them to jack the price up and make it nearly impossible to get sample for reverse engineering. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I want to know, is the $75,000 drug that's pennies in India being ripped off in India? Or have patents expired and unlike every other good or service that can be purchased from overseas, there's some protectionist law preventing it's import? Daraprim's patent expired in 1953 How does Turing Pharm have "marketing rights" then? Why doesn't a competitor bring a lower cost generic to market? Incredibly small market. No real money in a generic, which would have to go through abbreviated FDA testing again, at about ~3 and a half years to get to market. Turing consolidated all distribution to a closed system to allow them to jack the price up and make it nearly impossible to get sample for reverse engineering. Gotcha. The only market in the US is HIV patients, where India likely cranks it out for malaria. Still not sure why it couldn't be imported, unless there is federal regulation against it. |
|
I have no problem with free market solutions to bringing cheaper meds. Unfortunately, we have anything but a free market. Restrictions in the US aside, other countries don't want to pay for R&D and their populations can't even afford what we would consider cheap. I've heard that some refuse to grant local patent protection unless the drug companies agree to sell the meds at these super-cheap rates. Either the drug companies agree and maybe come out slightly better than breaking even on production costs or someone else just rips off their drug and they make nothing. Also letting global markets set the rates would preclude many from being able to afford drugs (remember, even our "poor" are in the richest 1% of the planet) and politicians can't sit by and let all those people die when they could be saved.
I wouldn't want any of the examples in the OP to be charged, but I don't see an obvious long-term solution either. |
|
I think if they are drugs needed for medical healing purposes, not pain killers(or other abused drugs), then I'm okay with all of those situations except the selling for profit situation.
I would not support in any way the wholesaling of narcotics and other scheduled drugs that cause dependency and addiction. Those drugs lead to other crimes which would then start affecting other citizens. |
|
Quoted:
I think if they are drugs needed for medical healing purposes, not pain killers(or other abused drugs), then I'm okay with all of those situations except the selling for profit situation. I would not support in any way the wholesaling of narcotics and other scheduled drugs that cause dependency and addiction. Those drugs lead to other crimes which would then start affecting other citizens. They probably lead to a shit ton less crime when you have easy access to cheap ass pills. |
|
Byron Dorgan and John McCain tried to add an amendment to Obamacare to allow drug reimportations from Canada. Obama and the pharmaceutical-company toadies in the Senate nixed it.
That told me all I needed to know about Obama. He's a bought-and-paid-for hack of Wall Street and big business. Obamacare is nothing but a gigantic giveaway to the insurance, pharmaceutical, and for-profit hospital industries. We'll never bring this under control until we have single payer -- a single payer system that can negotiate prices directly with the drug manufacturers. |