This is why capitalism sucks

zulu9812

The Newbie Nightmare
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Messages
6,388
Location
Athens of the North
from The Guardian
A major drug company is blocking access to a medicine that is cheaply and effectively saving thousands of people from going blind because it wants to launch a more expensive product on the market.

Ophthalmologists around the world, on their own initiative, are injecting tiny quantities of a colon cancer drug called Avastin into the eyes of patients with wet macular degeneration, a common condition of older age that can lead to severely impaired eyesight and blindness. They report remarkable success at very low cost because one phial can be split and used for dozens of patients.

But Genentech, the company that invented Avastin, does not want it used in this way. Instead it is applying to license a fragment of Avastin, called Lucentis, which is packaged in the tiny quantities suitable for eyes at a higher cost. Speculation in the US suggests it could cost £1,000 per dose instead of less than £10. The company says Lucentis is specifically designed for eyes, with modifications over Avastin, and has been through 10 years of testing to prove it is safe.

Unless Avastin is approved in the UK by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (Nice) it will not be universally available within the NHS. But because Genentech declines to apply for a licence for this use of Avastin, Nice cannot consider it. In spite of the growing drugs bill of the NHS, it will appraise, and probably approve, Lucentis next year.

Although Nice's role is to look at cost-effectiveness, it says it cannot appraise a drug and pass it for use in the NHS unless the drug is referred to it by the Department of Health. The department says its hands are tied.

"The drug company hasn't applied for it to be licensed for this use. It wouldn't be referred to Nice until they have made the first move," said a Department of Health spokeswoman. "They need to step up and get a licence. If they are not getting it licensed, why aren't they?"

New drugs for the condition are badly needed: those we have now only slow the progression to blindness. With Avastin, many patients get their sight back with just one or two injections.

Avastin was first used on human eyes by Philip Rosenfeld, an ophthalmologist in the US, who was aware of animal studies carried out by Genentech that showed potential in eye conditions. This unlicensed use of Avastin has spread across continents entirely by word of mouth from one doctor to another. It has now been injected into 7,000 eyes, with considerable success.

Professor Rosenfeld has published his results and a website has been launched in the US to collate the experiences of doctors from around the world. But although the evidence is good, regulators require randomised controlled trials before they grant licences, which generally only the drug companies can afford to carry out.

Prof Rosenfeld said the real issue was drug company profits. "This truly is a wonder drug," he said. "This shows both how good they [the drug companies] are and on the flip side, how greedy they are." He would like to see governments fund clinical trials of drugs such as Avastin in the public interest.

Rising drug bills are a big problem on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UK, said David Wong, chairman of the scientific committee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, doctors are fighting battles to persuade primary care trusts to pay for drugs to stop their patients going blind while they wait for Nice to decide on Lucentis and another expensive drug called Macugen. That decision is not expected before the end of next year.

About 20,000 people are diagnosed with age-related macular degeneration in the UK each year. "From the patient's point of view, if they have an eye condition that deteriorates very quickly, there is no question of waiting," said Professor Wong. "We're talking about days and weeks, rather than months. The question is should we do nothing and say there is no randomised controlled trial to prove Avastin is of value?" He called for primary care trusts to agree to pay for the planned phasing-in of new drugs for the condition.

Last night Genentech said its main concern over the use of Avastin to treat eye conditions was patient safety. "While there are some small, single-centre, uncontrolled studies of Avastin being performed, safety data on patients who are treated with Avastin off-label is not being collected in a standard or organised fashion," said a spokeswoman for the company.

Pharmaceutical firms say they need to launch drugs at high prices because of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on developing them. Critics point out that the company's calculations also include the marketing budget.

This is simply appalling. This is why healthcare should have no place for goddamned market forces.
 
Why have I never heard of this news site......ever.....
 
When you're the CEO of a company you have to think of your shareholders, now if you go before them and say you saved the sight of 10 people and let another 1000 go blind because they could not afford your drug, but saved close to a million pounds, they all pat you on the back and say good work, after all money is what it's about, nothing else matters. Sickening people, how do they sleep at night? Surely they should of been trialing Avastin not engineering a way to make more money with another drug that does the same thing, the guy who came up with this if there's any cosmic justice should be sacked and then go blind, that'll learn him, hatefull man and a waste of space.
 
Zulu's spot on. I was going to post this but I din't want to get a reputation as an internet moaner. Too late I know!

This is a bad example of a typical situation sadly, as Sidhe said. Dollars dictate what we do and there are millions of excellent ideas out there that get shelved simply because greedy tits can't think of a way to become stupendously rich from them. An even worse example are the thousands of companies that won't take action against climate change because they'd be one less Ferrari on their shareholders drives.

Perhaps worse than that, there are millions of absolutely bumwash ideas that we waste our lives on simply because we can make a profit.

We've got to learn a little disrespect for the dollar; it took thousands of years to kid people that money is worth something and the propaganda has worked too well.
 
The problem I have with the conclusion that the thread starter had. This is not why Capitalism fails because this is why human nature fails. People who are driven by the love of money is the problem here, not the system.
 
No, it's definitely the system, not the people. As Sidhe pointed out, even if a CEO wanted to save poverty stricken lives with his company's drugs, the shareholders would have none of it if profits were not being made, if stock prices dwindle and if the dividends stopped rolling out. CEO's obligation is to the shareholders, not to people with life threatening diseases who can't afford his drugs. It's really as simple as that.

This is also why you'll find piss poor / hardly any investments going into places ike Africa, because, frankly, any 'respected' bank in the world simply would not walk into such a loss making scenario. When there's profits to be made from lending to other places in the world, why bother?
 
That just proves my point. People want money. This will happen in a Communist country and a socialist one also, so it is not the system at fault. The shareholders are there for one purpose and one alone, and that is $. Most people really do not care much for other people as long that they are looked after first. So it is not the system that failed but the people who failed.

EDIT Crossposted with wvo.
 
Ah but you're forgetting the system that obligates those people and dictates their wants. The structure that governs their being. Tell me, say all those shareholders' "human nature" suddenly takes a benevolent streak and they all want to say the lives of these people, at the expense of making a buck ~ how exactly does the system help and encourage them do that if it means making a loss and going without that buck?

Perhaps you could say that they would find ways of making it profitable. Well why don't we see it more often then? Because doing business with those in poverty is a waste of time and money when there are other people in the world who will make you moolah. There's no point to it, no incentive, because the system invests saving lives with less value than making profit. In this sense, the fact that capitalism co-exists with the idea of human rights is frankly absurd.
 
How do you intend to get them that buck if you want them to get this thing out. Would you like to break into people's houses, ramsack them for cash, then walk out?
 
I think there is a balance. At the core, people are the inherent problem, however a system can influence people as much as people can influence a system. For the time being however, there appears no alternative to capitalism that works.
 
Rambuchan said:
Ah but you're forgetting the system that obligates those people and dictates their wants. The structure that governs their being. Tell me, say all those shareholders' "human nature" suddenly takes a benevolent streak and they all want to say the lives of these people, at the expense of making a buck ~ how exactly does the system help and encourage them do that if it means making a loss and going without that buck?

Perhaps you could say that they would find ways of making it profitable. Well why don't we see it more often then? Because doing business with those in poverty is a waste of time and money when there are other people in the world who will make you moolah. There's no point to it, no incentive, because the system invests saving lives with less value than making profit. In this sense, the fact that capitalism co-exists with the idea of human rights is frankly absurd.
Microsoft to aid devoloping countries.

Well if capitalism and human rights cannot co-exist, then why in that example, is Microsoft giving money away to poor countries? Obviously this is absurd.

You are failing to see that Capitalism in the light of human nature. Capitalism says that you can make money. Human nature under Capitalism without any checks and balances will make Capitalism bad for the vast majority.
 
Meleager: democratic socialism?

Classical Hero: I thought that Microsoft was owned more or less by bill Gates alone? Or am I gravely mistaken?
 
Capitalism combined with the greediness of human beings is pretty bad, but at least some immoral bastards will have more money then they did before:vomit:
 
Meleager said:
I think there is a balance. At the core, people are the inherent problem, however a system can influence people as much as people can influence a system. For the time being however, there appears no alternative to capitalism that works.

Balance absolutely this is out of kilter though by several orders of magnitude.

We don't necessarily need an alternative, just capatalism with social responsibility, this is not that hard to achieve and it has been achieved in free trade groups, you can make money and not impoversish people or kill them at the extreme, it's just at the end of the day it's not can we act in a responsible manner? It's how can we make the biggest profit possible without breaching the law?(or put simply self serving greed with zero conscience) What's so damned hard to understand about consideration of other people? Really? Or is that a sore point when the fiscal budget reports 800 million in profits instead of 650 million, what's the price of a diseases cure, or a mans life? That's essentially what these people should be asked, can you really justify your pathetic life based on the amount of ways you wangled an extra million and how many you caused suffering in?

There really should be some restrcitions placed on pharmaceutical manufacturers, something that says if it's not broke don't try and fix it by making a more expensive version of the same thing, and therefore screwing people over for the holy dollar. Well I've worked my self up into a lather but I've foregone the maggots on a carcass analogy narrowly, or have I?:)
 
I have to agree that when it comes to healthcare it should not be run by the priavte sector, patients should be put ahead of profits 100% of the time.
Meleager said:
For the time being however, there appears no alternative to capitalism that works.
Democratic Socialism is working very well in some European countries....:)
 
classical_hero said:
But it is also not working in others.
Maybe so, but what meleager said was 'there appears no alternative to capitalism that works' and cleary this shows the case to be otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom