I have a natural distrust of big monopolies (big oil, big pharma, big anything!) prompted more by gut sense than superior intellectual logic. Why must new drugs be always expensive? Suspicions suspicions and more suspicions.
My gut sense (rather than evidence) suggests that Big Pharma would surely have rejected many ‘miracle drugs discoveries’ (from their powerful research )merely because this could NOT be patented and therefore cannot be gouged for profits.
——————————
Scrooge and intellectual property rights
A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations
At Christmas, we traditionally retell Dickens’s story of Scrooge, who cared more for money than for his fellow human beings. What would we think of a Scrooge who could cure diseases that blighted thousands of people’s lives but did not do so? Clearly, we would be horrified. But this has increasingly been happening in the name of economics, under the innocent sounding guise of “intellectual property rights.”
Intellectual property differs from other property–restricting its use is inefficient as it costs nothing for another person to use it. Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, put it more poetically than modern economists (who refer to “zero marginal costs” and “non-rivalrous consumption”) when he said that knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish from the light of the first. Using knowledge to help someone does not prevent that knowledge from helping others. Intellectual property rights, however, enable one person or company to have exclusive control of the use of a particular piece of knowledge, thereby creating monopoly power. Monopolies distort the economy. Restricting the use of medical knowledge not only affects economic efficiency, but also life itself.
We tolerate such restrictions in the belief that they might spur innovation, balancing costs against benefits. But the costs of restrictions can outweigh the benefits. It is hard to see how the patent issued by the US government for the healing properties of turmeric, which had been known for hundreds of years, stimulated research. Had the patent been enforced in India, poor people who wanted to use this compound would have had to pay royalties to the United States.
In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year’s treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (┬г65; {euro}170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.
Developing countries paid a high price for this agreement. But what have they received in return? Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns. The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said “We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way … You can’t expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale.”2
Research needs money, but the current system results in limited funds being spent in the wrong way. For instance, the human genome project decoded the human genome within the target timeframe, but a few scientists managed to beat the project so they could patent genes related to breast cancer. The social value of gaining this knowledge slightly earlier was small, but the cost was enormous. Consequently the cost of testing for breast cancer vulnerability genes is high. In countries with no national health service many women with these genes will fail to be tested. In counties where governments will pay for these tests less money will be available for other public health needs.
A medical prize fund provides an alternative. Such a fund would give large rewards for cures or vaccines for diseases like malaria that affect millions, and smaller rewards for drugs that are similar to existing ones, with perhaps slightly different side effects. The intellectual property would be available to generic drug companies. The power of competitive markets would ensure a wide distribution at the lowest possible price, unlike the current system, which uses monopoly power, with its high prices and limited usage.
The prizes could be funded by governments in advanced industrial countries. For diseases that affect the developed world, governments are already paying as part of the health care they provide for their citizens. For diseases that affect developing countries, the funding could be part of development assistance. Money spent in this way might do as much to improve the wellbeing of people in the developing world–and even their productivity–as any other that they are given.
The medical prize fund could be one of several ways to promote innovation in crucial diseases. The most important ideas that emerge from basic science have never been protected by patents and never should be. Most researchers are motivated by the desire to enhance understanding and help humankind. Of course money is needed, and governments must continue to provide money through research grants along with support for government research laboratories and research universities. The patent system would continue to play a part for applications for which no one offers a prize . The prize fund should complement these other methods of funding; it at least holds the promise that in the future more money will be spent on research than on advertising and marketing of drugs, and that research concentrates on diseases that matter. Importantly, the medical prize fund would ensure that we make the best possible use of whatever knowledge we acquire, rather than hoarding it and limiting usage to those who can afford it, as Scrooge might have done. It is a thought we should keep in mind this Christmas.3 4 5 6
If there only were such things as “Thai academics” (are Nithi, Worachet, Parinya, Rangsan, Kasian, Thanapol, Supalack, etc. no Thai academics?) and “the Thais” (who often enough don’t really know much about their own political system, just look at the CDC). Simplistic approaches are never good, whether they come from “New Mandala ‘academics'” (as if they were a collective) or from Thais.
There is a bit of ingnorance in thinkng this whole problem can be solved by monitoring the sex industry. It hardly addresses the half a million or so who now have the disease and need treatment (and this is what the argument is about).
And to call the government’s argument nationalist? If a government follows it own laws (and producing generics of this drug is fully comaptible with current trade law) is this nationalism? I thought it was just what governments were supposed to do, and not obey every directive from America.
Finally, this argument about US corporations subsidizing the Thai health system is simply a crock. The drug will make more than enough money back from its US and western europe markets, and if it doesn’t well the directors should be replaced because they’re not doing a good job. Why should the Thai market be contributing to the R&D budget of a US multinational who, face it, are going to spend most of their reserach money on rich country medicine, like heart disease, sex enhancers (or whatever you call viagra), or the cosmetic industry (and this is the biggest R&D section in pharmatecuetical).
Thai academics have concluded that under the former Premier Thaksin, Thailand’s democracy was methodically being dismembered to meaninglessness. After all, Thailand was NOT the first country to be robbed of democracy in the name of democracy (Marcos, remember?).
But of course New Mandala ‘academics’ Thaksin’s democracy was all right. Why should the Thais care what foreigners think?
Indeeed, they do have to learn a lot. After all, it is difficult for western democracy theorists (including those working on Thailand) to understand that a huge section of academics, public intellectuals, and NGO (who all consider themselves strong supporters of democracy in Thailand) more or less enthusiastically join military coup-plotters who, from those westerners’ perspectice, had just robbed democracy from them!
In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had already been removed by their original posters. Of the remainder, several would be removed as offensive to HMK. The remainder on the government’s ‘offensive’ list were judged by google to be political criticisms of the government and nothing to do with lese majeste. These would not be removed.
Another report had the government saying it would go after the original posters of all the offensive clips.
[…] Thailand had threatened to sue Google and YouTube is currently blocked in Thailand.New Mandala has some questions. “Following this development, there are many new questions: When will YouTube be available […]
Burma’s just black. Thailand’s pure Yellow. Chai Yo to the Anti-Coup-Coup for the Advancement of Democracy. The West has a lot to learn from this important development forged by the crappy yellow shirted protectors of democracy.
“Daeng typifies [the] modern day, middle class, member of the silent majority ‘average Thai’, who is facing a dilemma (if you are a pessimist) and/or a challenge (if you happen to be an optimist)”.
This is hardly unique to Thailand and probably explains the persistence of President Bush and his ideas in US politics whose popularity rating is now at some 28%
This is an ailment of affluence.
The most prevalent attitude being to equating political views with complaining or having a personal problem.
As an editorial about a pastor in the US had it this week, “complaining” is a bad habit like smoking or drinking, and that to quit you need to refrain for one month, then you won’t be a a “complaining addict” anymore, and you’ll also be completely apolitical, at which time get ready for a ….. …. . . . coup.
Not quite sure what Thai Studies has to do with the the Iraq War. But admittedly if the US administration – and society generally – had had a better understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, which would have balanced the neo-con idealism, it might have avoided many of the mistakes it has made. Which is precisely the argument that Area Studies academic institutions – if we can include the Asia Foundation in this group, at least partly – need to come up with more critical analyses than this one – not analyses that seem deliberately designed to please royalist-military dictatorships.
Ha ha; saying Thai Studies is ahead of Burma Studies is faint praise indeed! I will give you that one. I can use it next time I’m ridiculed at a conference for winding up in this field, where the “leaders in the field”, both Western and Thai, can call the royalist-military overthrow of a democratically elected government a step forward for democracy. Then again, on this score, surely the Burma Studies people are ahead of us? They don’t seem to like military regimes, unlike the academics over in Thai Studies…
“If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?”
It is not supporting a $1.2 trillion war in Iraq.
Jim Klein probably had a tip jar in front of his podium.
Burma studies is more pathetic.
At least in Thai (or better Tai) studies there are enough people doing it that you can triangulate on an issue and see it from different angles.
One certainly can’t judge Jim Klein on this summary. Equally certainly, he is a “softy,” which might be a personal inclination, but surely is also influenced by the fact that he is the quasi-diplomatic representative of a US funding agency. His position is not that of an independent critical political analyst at some western university. If he had adopted this approach, he would have long been out of his job.
Agree with patiwat on this one. I am not sure if these were Klein’s words or the words of the anonymous “audience member” who sent the summary, but the concept of an “anti-coup coup” is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for political analysis. Klein wants to dispel the “preconception” that the military overthrow of a democratically elected government is anti-democratic?! Oh my god.
If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?
Having said this, I understand that the Asia Foundation would have to be somewhat politic about these things, but there are more sophisticated ways of doing it than this.
There is a pattern of the Thai government of using nationalism to foment hatred hatred towards foreigners usually for these reasons: 1. Distract from the incompetency of the government. 2. Blackmail foreigners into giving concessions. 3. Place blame on somebody other than the Thais.
Here are the fact concerning Thai government/Aids drugs controversy.:
1. Thailand is not a poor country. Whatever discrepancy in income between the rich and poor is the fault of the Thai government, not the US. The fact is that the Thai government, at any time, can raise taxes on its wealthiest and shift wealth to its poorest. The Thai government at any time can stop being corrupt and stop stealing resources from the Thai people.
2. The Thai government purposely chose to have a universal health care system.
3. When it purposely chose to have a universal health care system, it took on the responsibility to pay for it. At any time, it can raise taxes to pay for its health care industry and have the money to pay for its drugs.
4. Thailand has a multi-billion dollar sex industry
5. Thailand has done nothing to shut down its multi-billion dollar sex industry.
6. Thailand has done nothing to tax its multi-billion dollar sex industry to pay for the health consequences of having such an industry.
7. The Thai government wants US and French pharma companies to foot the medicine bill for the health consequences of its sex industry.
8. Hiv/Aids is a preventable disease in most cases, with very few exceptions.
It is universally known that unprotected sex with prostitutes and/or engaging in gay sex are considered risky sexual behaviors. We have known these facts for over 20 years. When giving blood, the Red Cross informs you of these facts.
9. In terms of public health policy, Thailand has pursued an aggressive policy against cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, because, and this is one of many reasons, over concerns about public health. But when it comes to the sex industry, it has done nothing.
10. The Thai Pharmaceutical Company that produces generics has not passed any international health inspection, has produced substandard generics that have put lives at risk, has used its office to make a profit, and hasn’t used those profits to invest in research and development in order to expand Thailand’s drug making capabalities.
11. For some reason, the Thai government isn’t issuing compulsory licenses for the drugs other killer diseases linked to one’s own personal responsibility. Why not? Why attack a US pharma company and why over a political issue like Aids?
Now, Jon, I have listed many of my unconvincing arguments.
Please refute the facts, and try to do so without attacking the evils of US pharmaceutical companies and corporate capitalism.
Please explain to me how the US pharma companies–regardless of how evil you think they are– are morally responsible for the immoral behavior and risky sexual behavior of Thais. And why do you think US corporations should subsidize a Thai health care system that the Thais are unwilling to pay for themselves through taxes, more investment in R and D, and improving their public health agencies that are responsible for preventing communicable diseases?
Zheng Chao- I resent being accused of something I didn’t say.
I never said that Hiv/Aids is “purely” a human behavior issue.
But you can’t deny that human behavior is the main cause. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it is the truth. And anybody who thinks that Thailand’s wide open sex industry isn’t contributing to the Aids problem in Thailand is self-delusional. It is the pink elephant in the room nobody wants to acknowledge.
And if people were more responsible about their sexual behavior, there probably would be more resources for those who are truly in need. Same goes for drinking, smoking, taking drugs.
Personally, I have nothing against prostitution or sex, but I believe when people engage in risky behaviors concerning their own health they should be responsible for the consequences of those behaviors.
If others want to argue that US pharm companies, because they are bad evil, should be responsible for subsidizing the health care system administered by a corrupt military junta that tolerates and profits from a multi-billion dollar sex industry, then go for it.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
More on patents and capitalism
I have a natural distrust of big monopolies (big oil, big pharma, big anything!) prompted more by gut sense than superior intellectual logic. Why must new drugs be always expensive? Suspicions suspicions and more suspicions.
My gut sense (rather than evidence) suggests that Big Pharma would surely have rejected many ‘miracle drugs discoveries’ (from their powerful research )merely because this could NOT be patented and therefore cannot be gouged for profits.
May I therefore be excused by reproducing Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz editorial piece below on this very subject?
(source: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/333/7582/1279)
——————————
Scrooge and intellectual property rights
A medical prize fund could improve the financing of drug innovations
At Christmas, we traditionally retell Dickens’s story of Scrooge, who cared more for money than for his fellow human beings. What would we think of a Scrooge who could cure diseases that blighted thousands of people’s lives but did not do so? Clearly, we would be horrified. But this has increasingly been happening in the name of economics, under the innocent sounding guise of “intellectual property rights.”
Intellectual property differs from other property–restricting its use is inefficient as it costs nothing for another person to use it. Thomas Jefferson, America’s third president, put it more poetically than modern economists (who refer to “zero marginal costs” and “non-rivalrous consumption”) when he said that knowledge is like a candle, when one candle lights another it does not diminish from the light of the first. Using knowledge to help someone does not prevent that knowledge from helping others. Intellectual property rights, however, enable one person or company to have exclusive control of the use of a particular piece of knowledge, thereby creating monopoly power. Monopolies distort the economy. Restricting the use of medical knowledge not only affects economic efficiency, but also life itself.
We tolerate such restrictions in the belief that they might spur innovation, balancing costs against benefits. But the costs of restrictions can outweigh the benefits. It is hard to see how the patent issued by the US government for the healing properties of turmeric, which had been known for hundreds of years, stimulated research. Had the patent been enforced in India, poor people who wanted to use this compound would have had to pay royalties to the United States.
In 1995 the Uruguay round trade negotiations concluded in the establishment of the World Trade Organization, which imposed US style intellectual property rights around the world. These rights were intended to reduce access to generic medicines and they succeeded. As generic medicines cost a fraction of their brand name counterparts, billions could no longer afford the drugs they needed. For example, a year’s treatment with a generic cocktail of AIDS drugs might cost $130 (┬г65; {euro}170) compared with $10 000 for the brand name version.1 Billions of people living on $2-3 a day cannot afford $10 000, though they might be able to scrape together enough for the generic drugs. And matters are getting worse. New drug regimens recommended by the World Health Organization and second line defences that need to be used as resistance to standard treatments develops can cost much more.
Developing countries paid a high price for this agreement. But what have they received in return? Drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than on research, more on research on lifestyle drugs than on life saving drugs, and almost nothing on diseases that affect developing countries only. This is not surprising. Poor people cannot afford drugs, and drug companies make investments that yield the highest returns. The chief executive of Novartis, a drug company with a history of social responsibility, said “We have no model which would [meet] the need for new drugs in a sustainable way … You can’t expect for-profit organizations to do this on a large scale.”2
Research needs money, but the current system results in limited funds being spent in the wrong way. For instance, the human genome project decoded the human genome within the target timeframe, but a few scientists managed to beat the project so they could patent genes related to breast cancer. The social value of gaining this knowledge slightly earlier was small, but the cost was enormous. Consequently the cost of testing for breast cancer vulnerability genes is high. In countries with no national health service many women with these genes will fail to be tested. In counties where governments will pay for these tests less money will be available for other public health needs.
A medical prize fund provides an alternative. Such a fund would give large rewards for cures or vaccines for diseases like malaria that affect millions, and smaller rewards for drugs that are similar to existing ones, with perhaps slightly different side effects. The intellectual property would be available to generic drug companies. The power of competitive markets would ensure a wide distribution at the lowest possible price, unlike the current system, which uses monopoly power, with its high prices and limited usage.
The prizes could be funded by governments in advanced industrial countries. For diseases that affect the developed world, governments are already paying as part of the health care they provide for their citizens. For diseases that affect developing countries, the funding could be part of development assistance. Money spent in this way might do as much to improve the wellbeing of people in the developing world–and even their productivity–as any other that they are given.
The medical prize fund could be one of several ways to promote innovation in crucial diseases. The most important ideas that emerge from basic science have never been protected by patents and never should be. Most researchers are motivated by the desire to enhance understanding and help humankind. Of course money is needed, and governments must continue to provide money through research grants along with support for government research laboratories and research universities. The patent system would continue to play a part for applications for which no one offers a prize . The prize fund should complement these other methods of funding; it at least holds the promise that in the future more money will be spent on research than on advertising and marketing of drugs, and that research concentrates on diseases that matter. Importantly, the medical prize fund would ensure that we make the best possible use of whatever knowledge we acquire, rather than hoarding it and limiting usage to those who can afford it, as Scrooge might have done. It is a thought we should keep in mind this Christmas.3 4 5 6
Joseph E Stiglitz, professor
1 Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA
New Mandala in Bangkok
I got very dizzy reading your abstract Andrew, lost in the translation? Until I got to ” rural constipation” and I finally I got it!
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
If there only were such things as “Thai academics” (are Nithi, Worachet, Parinya, Rangsan, Kasian, Thanapol, Supalack, etc. no Thai academics?) and “the Thais” (who often enough don’t really know much about their own political system, just look at the CDC). Simplistic approaches are never good, whether they come from “New Mandala ‘academics'” (as if they were a collective) or from Thais.
More on patents and capitalism
There is a bit of ingnorance in thinkng this whole problem can be solved by monitoring the sex industry. It hardly addresses the half a million or so who now have the disease and need treatment (and this is what the argument is about).
And to call the government’s argument nationalist? If a government follows it own laws (and producing generics of this drug is fully comaptible with current trade law) is this nationalism? I thought it was just what governments were supposed to do, and not obey every directive from America.
Finally, this argument about US corporations subsidizing the Thai health system is simply a crock. The drug will make more than enough money back from its US and western europe markets, and if it doesn’t well the directors should be replaced because they’re not doing a good job. Why should the Thai market be contributing to the R&D budget of a US multinational who, face it, are going to spend most of their reserach money on rich country medicine, like heart disease, sex enhancers (or whatever you call viagra), or the cosmetic industry (and this is the biggest R&D section in pharmatecuetical).
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
Thai academics have concluded that under the former Premier Thaksin, Thailand’s democracy was methodically being dismembered to meaninglessness. After all, Thailand was NOT the first country to be robbed of democracy in the name of democracy (Marcos, remember?).
But of course New Mandala ‘academics’ Thaksin’s democracy was all right. Why should the Thais care what foreigners think?
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
Indeeed, they do have to learn a lot. After all, it is difficult for western democracy theorists (including those working on Thailand) to understand that a huge section of academics, public intellectuals, and NGO (who all consider themselves strong supporters of democracy in Thailand) more or less enthusiastically join military coup-plotters who, from those westerners’ perspectice, had just robbed democracy from them!
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement?
In the report I read, Google had said that half the clips had already been removed by their original posters. Of the remainder, several would be removed as offensive to HMK. The remainder on the government’s ‘offensive’ list were judged by google to be political criticisms of the government and nothing to do with lese majeste. These would not be removed.
Another report had the government saying it would go after the original posters of all the offensive clips.
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: A settlement?
[…] Thailand had threatened to sue Google and YouTube is currently blocked in Thailand.New Mandala has some questions. “Following this development, there are many new questions: When will YouTube be available […]
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
Burma’s just black. Thailand’s pure Yellow. Chai Yo to the Anti-Coup-Coup for the Advancement of Democracy. The West has a lot to learn from this important development forged by the crappy yellow shirted protectors of democracy.
More on patents and capitalism
Here a some of their own “home” link: http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/cl/us-cr.html
Another one in their backyard: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/167/7/765.pdf
What about “Plavix”?
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
People in Burmese Studies can be happy that they have a nice black-and-white situation.
“Whose side are you on?”
“Daeng typifies [the] modern day, middle class, member of the silent majority ‘average Thai’, who is facing a dilemma (if you are a pessimist) and/or a challenge (if you happen to be an optimist)”.
This is hardly unique to Thailand and probably explains the persistence of President Bush and his ideas in US politics whose popularity rating is now at some 28%
This is an ailment of affluence.
The most prevalent attitude being to equating political views with complaining or having a personal problem.
As an editorial about a pastor in the US had it this week, “complaining” is a bad habit like smoking or drinking, and that to quit you need to refrain for one month, then you won’t be a a “complaining addict” anymore, and you’ll also be completely apolitical, at which time get ready for a ….. …. . . . coup.
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
Not quite sure what Thai Studies has to do with the the Iraq War. But admittedly if the US administration – and society generally – had had a better understanding of Iraq and the Middle East, which would have balanced the neo-con idealism, it might have avoided many of the mistakes it has made. Which is precisely the argument that Area Studies academic institutions – if we can include the Asia Foundation in this group, at least partly – need to come up with more critical analyses than this one – not analyses that seem deliberately designed to please royalist-military dictatorships.
Ha ha; saying Thai Studies is ahead of Burma Studies is faint praise indeed! I will give you that one. I can use it next time I’m ridiculed at a conference for winding up in this field, where the “leaders in the field”, both Western and Thai, can call the royalist-military overthrow of a democratically elected government a step forward for democracy. Then again, on this score, surely the Burma Studies people are ahead of us? They don’t seem to like military regimes, unlike the academics over in Thai Studies…
High Himalayan Prince, Low Price Souvenir
i think the picture that was show on pantip web was a mistake, cuz there was one thai actor that looks similar as the prince, it could by him !!
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
“If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?”
It is not supporting a $1.2 trillion war in Iraq.
Jim Klein probably had a tip jar in front of his podium.
Burma studies is more pathetic.
At least in Thai (or better Tai) studies there are enough people doing it that you can triangulate on an issue and see it from different angles.
YouTube vs Thai dictatorship: The saga continues
[…] is a new development in the conflict between YouTube and the Thai […]
The practice of sufficiency economy
sufficiency economy web site
http://www.sufficiencyeconomy.org/en/
This site features a number of Thai and English language articles.
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
One certainly can’t judge Jim Klein on this summary. Equally certainly, he is a “softy,” which might be a personal inclination, but surely is also influenced by the fact that he is the quasi-diplomatic representative of a US funding agency. His position is not that of an independent critical political analyst at some western university. If he had adopted this approach, he would have long been out of his job.
What about an anti-coup-coup coup?
Agree with patiwat on this one. I am not sure if these were Klein’s words or the words of the anonymous “audience member” who sent the summary, but the concept of an “anti-coup coup” is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for political analysis. Klein wants to dispel the “preconception” that the military overthrow of a democratically elected government is anti-democratic?! Oh my god.
If there were an Area Studies prize for the field with the worst political analysis surely Thai Studies would have to win hands down. Why is it so pathetic? The language? Cultural misunderstanding? Cultural seduction? What is it?
Having said this, I understand that the Asia Foundation would have to be somewhat politic about these things, but there are more sophisticated ways of doing it than this.
More on patents and capitalism
Jon-
There is a pattern of the Thai government of using nationalism to foment hatred hatred towards foreigners usually for these reasons: 1. Distract from the incompetency of the government. 2. Blackmail foreigners into giving concessions. 3. Place blame on somebody other than the Thais.
Here are the fact concerning Thai government/Aids drugs controversy.:
1. Thailand is not a poor country. Whatever discrepancy in income between the rich and poor is the fault of the Thai government, not the US. The fact is that the Thai government, at any time, can raise taxes on its wealthiest and shift wealth to its poorest. The Thai government at any time can stop being corrupt and stop stealing resources from the Thai people.
2. The Thai government purposely chose to have a universal health care system.
3. When it purposely chose to have a universal health care system, it took on the responsibility to pay for it. At any time, it can raise taxes to pay for its health care industry and have the money to pay for its drugs.
4. Thailand has a multi-billion dollar sex industry
5. Thailand has done nothing to shut down its multi-billion dollar sex industry.
6. Thailand has done nothing to tax its multi-billion dollar sex industry to pay for the health consequences of having such an industry.
7. The Thai government wants US and French pharma companies to foot the medicine bill for the health consequences of its sex industry.
8. Hiv/Aids is a preventable disease in most cases, with very few exceptions.
It is universally known that unprotected sex with prostitutes and/or engaging in gay sex are considered risky sexual behaviors. We have known these facts for over 20 years. When giving blood, the Red Cross informs you of these facts.
9. In terms of public health policy, Thailand has pursued an aggressive policy against cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, because, and this is one of many reasons, over concerns about public health. But when it comes to the sex industry, it has done nothing.
10. The Thai Pharmaceutical Company that produces generics has not passed any international health inspection, has produced substandard generics that have put lives at risk, has used its office to make a profit, and hasn’t used those profits to invest in research and development in order to expand Thailand’s drug making capabalities.
11. For some reason, the Thai government isn’t issuing compulsory licenses for the drugs other killer diseases linked to one’s own personal responsibility. Why not? Why attack a US pharma company and why over a political issue like Aids?
Now, Jon, I have listed many of my unconvincing arguments.
Please refute the facts, and try to do so without attacking the evils of US pharmaceutical companies and corporate capitalism.
Please explain to me how the US pharma companies–regardless of how evil you think they are– are morally responsible for the immoral behavior and risky sexual behavior of Thais. And why do you think US corporations should subsidize a Thai health care system that the Thais are unwilling to pay for themselves through taxes, more investment in R and D, and improving their public health agencies that are responsible for preventing communicable diseases?
Zheng Chao- I resent being accused of something I didn’t say.
I never said that Hiv/Aids is “purely” a human behavior issue.
But you can’t deny that human behavior is the main cause. It may not be politically correct to say it, but it is the truth. And anybody who thinks that Thailand’s wide open sex industry isn’t contributing to the Aids problem in Thailand is self-delusional. It is the pink elephant in the room nobody wants to acknowledge.
And if people were more responsible about their sexual behavior, there probably would be more resources for those who are truly in need. Same goes for drinking, smoking, taking drugs.
Personally, I have nothing against prostitution or sex, but I believe when people engage in risky behaviors concerning their own health they should be responsible for the consequences of those behaviors.
If others want to argue that US pharm companies, because they are bad evil, should be responsible for subsidizing the health care system administered by a corrupt military junta that tolerates and profits from a multi-billion dollar sex industry, then go for it.