A New Kind of Bad Guy

Today's topic, boys and girls, will be about bad guys.  You may call them villains or whatever you wish, but they boil down to evil intent.  I point your attention to a scholarly article on the subject of today's bad guys: pharmaceutical companies that are price gouging.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/09/generic_drug_price_gouging_how_shkreli_and_other_monopolists_cornered_the.html

The article is full of a lot of big words, but here is the jist:
A small pharmaceutical (drug) company, led by a smirky young CEO, has acquired the rights to an old drug (since the 40s) that is prescribed to fight parasitic infections that sometimes prey on people with AIDS.  Under this man's leadership, the price of the pills went from $13.50 apiece to $750.  The CEO says he believes that the cost of the drugs should be borne by the people who use them, rather than on the backs of those who don't.  (I don't believe that drugs were ever part of a socialist notion that the many pay for the few, but I am admittedly naive about such things, so I'm not sure.)  He made another statement, however, that sent up a red flag in my brain.  That was something to the effect that the price increase was a "favor to society".  I asked myself why.  Who will benefit from the price increase, and who will suffer from it?  The drug company is the only beneficiary, and the majority of the sufferers are AIDS patients.  And who, according to societal myths, are the bulk of AIDS sufferers?  Homosexuals.  Since we are a nation divided over same-sex issues, I wonder if the agenda of this drug company, led by Mr. Shkreli, is meant as a strike against gay folks.

What Mr. Shkreli has done is, apparently, totally legal.  Is it ethical?  Not on your life!  It's not a matter of supply-and-demand.  It's not a matter of a new drug being tested on the market.  It's not even a matter of keeping the drug company afloat.  It IS a matter of corporate greed with maybe some social issues at the fore?

Back in the 70s, I was doing homebound instruction for a Pontiac (IL) Junior High student who had a heart transplant.  Heart transplants were relatively new in those days, but the girl had cardiomyopathy, and there was no other choice.  After her successful transplant, she was prescribed the anti-rejection drug Cyclosporin.  The cost for that drug was over $2,000 a month.  Her father was a state employee, working for the Department of Corrections at the Pontiac maximum security prison.  The family had insurance through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but BC/BS refused to pay for the drug because it was considered experimental.  The cost of that one medicine was more than the family's monthly income. What were they supposed to do?  Let their child die because they couldn't afford the medicine that would prevent her body's rejection of her new heart??  In desperation, the family went to the media with their plight.  Then-Governor Jim Walker got wind of it and worked some magic to force BC/BS to pay up.  I think the young lady eventually died...but that's not the story I am focusing on here.

I think I am part of this new Bad Guy thing.  My pulmonary doctor has given me a couple of sample inhalers, etc., that seem really helpful, but I can't afford the prescription.  We've gone around the mulberry bush with two prescriptions now, both of which are out of reach for me--even with Medicare and supplementary insurance.  I live on a subsistence budget.  I get by, barring anything catastrophic.  I'm sorry that I can't afford $250 a month for a breathing drug, but so far, I still don't depend on anyone else for financial help.  The doc and I settled for an older drug that is much, much cheaper...but what would I do if a pharmaceutical company bought the rights and decided to hike the price out of reason?

When I was a kid in the 1950s, poliomyelitis was a scourge.  It killed many and crippled more.  Even President FDR was affected.  And then, Dr. Jonas Salk developed a vaccine that prevented it from infecting more victims.  We children back then were lined up at school to be vaccinated--for free.  Polio has been eradicated in the world, except among the unvaccinated.  Dr. Salk rejected the notoriety he was receiving.  When asked "Who owns the patent to this vaccination?", he responded, "No one.  Who can patent the sun?"  He could have profited greatly from his scientific work; instead, he gave it to the world.  Had Mr. Shkreli been in charge, we would still be fighting polio because the poor or under-insured would not have been able to afford the vaccine.  If you didn't grow up in my era, you won't understand, but the world can thank God for the likes of Jonas Salk.  Mr. Shkreli?  Not so much.

I don't want to be held hostage by the drug Bad Guys.  I'm not stupid enough to believe that research just happens without financial support, but I also don't believe that putting a drug (or vaccine) out of the reach of those who need it will advance us as a nation.  I am also very much suspicious of companies that seem to be aiming at a certain controversial target.  I could be wrong, but I don't think so!