Capitalism hurts Medical research.

[ghost_stalker]

In the world we live in today we have many medicines that treat illness (no cures, but treatments), and the major parties involved in medical research are large pharmaceutical companies, which sell these treatments to make their money. And use the money to find more treatments (which they can charge more people for, and therefore make more money)

Now heres where the catch comes in, these companies make treatments not cures, they do this because treating you is more profitable than curing you. If got cured then you wouldn't need to buy anymore medicine, then the pharmaceutical companies would get your money. They keep one step ahead making sure that once one medicine becomes ineffective they have one that is equally effective, not better.

If medicine research is left to capitalist corporation, then we will never find a cure for anything because it wouldn't be profitable. Research instead should be done by an organization that will benefit from curing people, without receiving any benefit from developing a treatment. If pharmaceutical companies worked to cure disease instead of treating it we probably would be alot more healthy than we are today.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: ghost_stalker In the world we live in today we have many medicines that treat illness (no cures, but treatments), and the major parties involved in medical research are large pharmaceutical companies, which sell these treatments to make their money. And use the money to find more treatments (which they can charge more people for, and therefore make more money) Now heres where the catch comes in, these companies make treatments not cures, they do this because treating you is more profitable than curing you. If got cured then you wouldn't need to buy anymore medicine, then the pharmaceutical companies would get your money. They keep one step ahead making sure that once one medicine becomes ineffective they have one that is equally effective, not better. If medicine research is left to capitalist corporation, then we will never find a cure for anything because it wouldn't be profitable. Research instead should be done by an organization that will benefit from curing people, without receiving any benefit from developing a treatment. If pharmaceutical companies worked to cure disease instead of treating it we probably would be alot more healthy than we are today.

The only problem with that is that pharma's do seek cures, because if someone found, for example, the cure for AIDS, that company will make a fortune and probably eat up a lot of the market. So it is in their interest to be the one of finds the cure.

Moreover, the prime reason cures are less common than treatments is because viruses and bacterias evolve, especially viruses. This is why a cure for the common cold is virtually impossible, it practically evolves with each carrier. In fact, what disease or virus do we actually have a fully fledged cure for? As in all round antidote? I can't think of one. Some things we have wiped out, such as small pox, because of mass campaigns of innoculation, not because of a cure.

If you were correct however in your analysis, what organisation would you suggest fits your criteria? I don't know of any organisation that would actually benefit from curing people outright, unless they have ulterior purposes just as self serving as big pharma.

[Osborn F Enready]

True capitalism, as in a "true" free market, are what CREATED advances in medicine.

I fail to see any connection here, other than the fact that Americans and the world in general FORGOT to limit corporate growth via local checks on corporate charter.

[brien]

Quote by: ghost_stalker In the world we live in today we have many medicines that treat illness (no cures, but treatments), and the major parties involved in medical research are large pharmaceutical companies, which sell these treatments to make their money. And use the money to find more treatments (which they can charge more people for, and therefore make more money) Now heres where the catch comes in, these companies make treatments not cures, they do this because treating you is more profitable than curing you. If got cured then you wouldn't need to buy anymore medicine, then the pharmaceutical companies would get your money. They keep one step ahead making sure that once one medicine becomes ineffective they have one that is equally effective, not better. If medicine research is left to capitalist corporation, then we will never find a cure for anything because it wouldn't be profitable. Research instead should be done by an organization that will benefit from curing people, without receiving any benefit from developing a treatment. If pharmaceutical companies worked to cure disease instead of treating it we probably would be alot more healthy than we are today.

Well now, let's see. Do you have, or have you ever had, a disease that threatened your life? Do you know what it is to benefit from a treatment that doesn't cure you but does stem the progression of the disease? Do you know what it is like to benefit from a medicine that in many ways will reverse the effect and causes of a life threatening disease?

I can speak from experience with Cancer and what I have found is that I am damn thankful there is Lupron. I am damn thankful there is radiational therapy. I am damn thankful there is Casodex. None of these therapeutic benefits are a cure but they, in a combined manner, saved my life and I am damned thankful to the people who designed them. I don't care if they are working on a cure or not because what they did develop saved my life at the time.

As for a cure for cancer, can you imagine the profits that will be earned by the company that develops a vacine for Breast or Prostate cancer? Can you imagine the money the person will earn that patents the proceedure to eliminate and substitute the genes that are marked for cancer? It will dwarf the profits of any one cancer "maintenence" drug like Casodex. Besides, when a drug is first developed, it tends to be expensive . Then, as it becomes more widely used, it is manufactured as a generic, and then finally it can be offered over the counter. This happened with Zantac. Therefore, I disagree there is no financial gain in developing a cure for diseases that maine and kill. You premise is a stretch to accept.

Take the profit motive out of the mix, and I ask, where would the incentive be to develop the cure? In government research? Haaa Not likely. All you would probably have is a government boondoggle to keep researchers in a job without having to produce meaningful results.

No, when there is profit incentive in searching for the cures for debilitating and deadly diseases, there is motive to be successful. Financial rewards have proven to be powerful incentives in health care.

[JohnMK]

"Cures" are orders upon orders of magnitude more difficult to find than treatments. I suggest that if a government rallied citizens to disproportionately weight investment into cures, and not treatments, that we would be less healthy.

[brien]

Quote by: JohnMK "Cures" are orders upon orders of magnitude more difficult to find than treatments. I suggest that if a government rallied citizens to disproportionately weight investment into cures, and not treatments, that we would be less healthy.

Absolutely. We require maintenance drugs while we are exploring the alternative "cures." And speaking of "cures", we will probably see this come in phases rather than in one "miracle cure" for any one disease. For example, we have seen some success in radiation when it comes to certain tumors in cancer but there are other more promising alternatives on the horizon when it comes to eliminating the existence and growth of cancer cells. Without going into cutting edge therepeutic treatments for cancer, suffice it to say, radiation works well for some now, but in the future, there undoubtedly will be treatments that will replace radiation and increase the effectiveness of the "cure."