I can't believe it has been ten years since I first started this website, and a lot has changed since then. My newfound apathy to everything economical and, these days, political can only go so far when I see something like "Daraprim prices soar to new heights" and "Volkswagen caught with its pants down modifying diesel fuel emission statistics from its automobiles". Dystopian literature has always conceived a future where every aspect of life, from body parts to the pollutants we breathe in, undergoes extensive commodification. Even Marx himself stated that capitalism in its current form would eventually be its own undoing, where the wealthy elite will consolidate power to the extent that the masses will have no viable alternative to living a life constantly in debt to their superiors other than to revolt against them.
One can argue that what Martin Shkreli, the smug-faced CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, did was immoral albeit not illegal [1]: he was within the bounds of New York State Law to increase the price on a drug that is used in exceptional cases to treat toxoplasmosis, a rare infection found in immunosuppressed situations encountered in patients with AIDS, organ transplants, certain leukemias, some medications, and other immune-compromised states. However, to pounce on an opportunity to milk money out of unborn babies who could potentially have serious congenital defects if left untreated; men and women with potentially severe neurologic sequelae of the disease; and others who have little choice but to use this drug is in itself a criminal act that exploits the dire suffering of the abovementioned groups for personal profit.
Sure, he wasn't the first (the examples of cycloserine and doxycycline also resound vociferously), as the pharmaceutical industry is notorious for its rather toxic competitive atmosphere and, by corollary, hostility towards nascent drug companies [2]; and I can see where Mr. Shkreli is coming from: he's the new kid on the block of Big Pharma, and he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Nonetheless, to exploit an old drug that has been widely available to many of those who suffer from toxoplasmosis by literally taking it away from their grasp is asking for widespread condemnation let alone bad publicity, and would destroy consumer confidence. The endless comparisons to Dr. Jonas Salk, who shared the polio vaccine to all on humanitarian grounds, highlights how low the level of "altruism" in today's day and age has stooped.
It is just disturbing that we have reached a point where money talks and walks all over the decision-making political scene. Issues such as health and accessibility to healthcare are subdivided further and further apart based on factors such as age, class, gender preference, and even race. There is no general consensus that health should be a society's first priority because instead of being comprised of a single humanity, society is now a pizza pie of lobbyists upon lobbyists upon lobbyists vying for attention and representation. Some pieces of the pie are unfortunately larger than others, and only by virtue of their following do they gain "importance".
So, what's my point? It's simple and complicated at the same time: there is little to no altruism in a system that encourages maximizing profits and minimizing costs, especially when the individual lives in a society that presses him/her to succeed through the enhancement of his/her own value on whatever market pool he/she is swimming in. All of this can be summed up in one word: ambition. We can't let unfettered capitalism take precedence, but neither can we let socialism off the hook as well: either system is governed by human beings with ambitions of power, and little to no checks and balances exist to rein them in exist in modern society to implement justice and equality for all.
Anyways, enough of my ranting for now... I'm off to bed...
One can argue that what Martin Shkreli, the smug-faced CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, did was immoral albeit not illegal [1]: he was within the bounds of New York State Law to increase the price on a drug that is used in exceptional cases to treat toxoplasmosis, a rare infection found in immunosuppressed situations encountered in patients with AIDS, organ transplants, certain leukemias, some medications, and other immune-compromised states. However, to pounce on an opportunity to milk money out of unborn babies who could potentially have serious congenital defects if left untreated; men and women with potentially severe neurologic sequelae of the disease; and others who have little choice but to use this drug is in itself a criminal act that exploits the dire suffering of the abovementioned groups for personal profit.
Sure, he wasn't the first (the examples of cycloserine and doxycycline also resound vociferously), as the pharmaceutical industry is notorious for its rather toxic competitive atmosphere and, by corollary, hostility towards nascent drug companies [2]; and I can see where Mr. Shkreli is coming from: he's the new kid on the block of Big Pharma, and he wants to have his cake and eat it too. Nonetheless, to exploit an old drug that has been widely available to many of those who suffer from toxoplasmosis by literally taking it away from their grasp is asking for widespread condemnation let alone bad publicity, and would destroy consumer confidence. The endless comparisons to Dr. Jonas Salk, who shared the polio vaccine to all on humanitarian grounds, highlights how low the level of "altruism" in today's day and age has stooped.
It is just disturbing that we have reached a point where money talks and walks all over the decision-making political scene. Issues such as health and accessibility to healthcare are subdivided further and further apart based on factors such as age, class, gender preference, and even race. There is no general consensus that health should be a society's first priority because instead of being comprised of a single humanity, society is now a pizza pie of lobbyists upon lobbyists upon lobbyists vying for attention and representation. Some pieces of the pie are unfortunately larger than others, and only by virtue of their following do they gain "importance".
So, what's my point? It's simple and complicated at the same time: there is little to no altruism in a system that encourages maximizing profits and minimizing costs, especially when the individual lives in a society that presses him/her to succeed through the enhancement of his/her own value on whatever market pool he/she is swimming in. All of this can be summed up in one word: ambition. We can't let unfettered capitalism take precedence, but neither can we let socialism off the hook as well: either system is governed by human beings with ambitions of power, and little to no checks and balances exist to rein them in exist in modern society to implement justice and equality for all.
Anyways, enough of my ranting for now... I'm off to bed...
Comments
Post a Comment