Showing posts with label pharmaceuticals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pharmaceuticals. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
I don't get it
Here in the USA they love to advertise prescription pharmaceuticals. I don't have a problem with that, I just don't get it. Now I have to admit the ads are pretty lame, showing off a person who now has an amazing return to brilliant health due to this wonder drug. What I don't get if that to avoid a law suit they have to go through all the side effects. About two thirds of the ad is taken up saying how the drug could kill you, cripple you or turn you suicidal. There has to be a better way to market a product. An example is below. Stay well:)
Thursday, February 9, 2012
How can we finish the job?
In the blog post titled "Great job but still a way to go", my friend Wendy made a good point. Because of the risk to the pharmaceutical industry not wanting to put an end to genetic illness (because it will hurt their bottom line) it will never happen.
First before I continue I would just like to address the stem cell debate because in this case, I don't think that the same moral implications necessarily apply and here is why. Now what I alluded to in the post mentioned above does fall under the category of embryonic stem cell research, but in this different. Most embryonic stem cell research results in the destruction of the embryo. In this case the embryo is not destroyed, but changed so that an individual can live a better healthier life.
Now we have got that cleared up we can start talking about the way to stop the pharmaceuticals from arresting this kind of research. Well first, the research takes money. Now a lot of the research done around the world is funded by pharmaceutical companies because they feel they can make some money out of it.
Now we can't make the pharmaceuticals fund research that is going to send them broke. It would be like asking a worker to pay for the privilege of doing your job, so where do we get the money from? Well we have to ask who stands to benefit from this. Now the companies that are doing the research stand to benefit, but it is hard to find private investors who are willing to take a gamble on a business that realistically have a financial, viable product for at least thirty years.
One more viable option would be a conglomeration of insurance companies which give money to research projects that find it hard to find funding. Why would they do this? Well, sick people cost insurance companies money. To decrease the number of sick people on the planet would be extremely profitable for insurance companies.
The last option is governments. Personally, I believe that governments have a social responsibility to try and make their countries as healthy as possible without sacrificing the freedom of individuals. Also, a healthier population means less drain on the state health care system, less people on welfare and more people out in the workforce paying tax. Wow, that could mean a lot of money. Unfortunately, politicians have a knack of not seeing past the next election. As patients and citizens and voters we could help by showing appreciation to politicians for taking a long term view.
Another obstacle would be pharmaceutical companies lobbying to stall the research. Personally I think that is horribly unethical but hey, it's not a perfect world. Now, the pharmaceutical companies would find it hard to take the pro life stance (see paragraph 2) and the moral high ground would stand with the pro researchers. Anyway, this battle isn't going to be fought just yet and don't get too excited. There is still a long long way to go. Until next time, stay well:)
First before I continue I would just like to address the stem cell debate because in this case, I don't think that the same moral implications necessarily apply and here is why. Now what I alluded to in the post mentioned above does fall under the category of embryonic stem cell research, but in this different. Most embryonic stem cell research results in the destruction of the embryo. In this case the embryo is not destroyed, but changed so that an individual can live a better healthier life.
Now we have got that cleared up we can start talking about the way to stop the pharmaceuticals from arresting this kind of research. Well first, the research takes money. Now a lot of the research done around the world is funded by pharmaceutical companies because they feel they can make some money out of it.
Now we can't make the pharmaceuticals fund research that is going to send them broke. It would be like asking a worker to pay for the privilege of doing your job, so where do we get the money from? Well we have to ask who stands to benefit from this. Now the companies that are doing the research stand to benefit, but it is hard to find private investors who are willing to take a gamble on a business that realistically have a financial, viable product for at least thirty years.
One more viable option would be a conglomeration of insurance companies which give money to research projects that find it hard to find funding. Why would they do this? Well, sick people cost insurance companies money. To decrease the number of sick people on the planet would be extremely profitable for insurance companies.
The last option is governments. Personally, I believe that governments have a social responsibility to try and make their countries as healthy as possible without sacrificing the freedom of individuals. Also, a healthier population means less drain on the state health care system, less people on welfare and more people out in the workforce paying tax. Wow, that could mean a lot of money. Unfortunately, politicians have a knack of not seeing past the next election. As patients and citizens and voters we could help by showing appreciation to politicians for taking a long term view.
Another obstacle would be pharmaceutical companies lobbying to stall the research. Personally I think that is horribly unethical but hey, it's not a perfect world. Now, the pharmaceutical companies would find it hard to take the pro life stance (see paragraph 2) and the moral high ground would stand with the pro researchers. Anyway, this battle isn't going to be fought just yet and don't get too excited. There is still a long long way to go. Until next time, stay well:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)