Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
.. whether the company merck, sharpe and dohme are evil?
they pretty have to be, don't they?
the name sounds german.
against that claim, but I see what you're saying.
Are you running against 60 years of popular culture?
We're evil too, by the way. You know, being British and all.
sounding German and thus being evil.
So they're either working hard to improve people's lives or making cash out of human misery depending on your viewpoint.
I've no reason to believe they're any more/less evil than any other pharamaceutical company.
what is your viewpoint? i mean, i was talking to a dr about this the other day and they said that virtually every significant medical advance had arisen as a result of investment in research by pharmaceutical companies. At the same time, i find alot of the overprotection of right to manufacture anti-retrovirals pretty despicable .... so i dunno. hmmm.
get them to buy all our journals!
being Future Science Group journals.
www.future-drugs.com and www.futuremedicine.com
I work in a hospital and deal with drug reps and I'm very unsure on the whole thing.
I find the whole idea of making profits out of people's illnesses deplorable and it is disgusting that people in 3rd world countries don't have access to medicines that they really need purely because of money. And obviously the drive-for-profit means that there's much more impetus to create lifestyle drugs such as slimming pills that the rich might by rather than HIV cures which would largely be needed by poorer people who might not be able to pay for them.
But the truth is we live in a Capitalist society and, under the political system we have created for themselves, drug companies have every right (and arguably the reponsibility to shareholders) to make as much money as possible. And the sad truth is that, were there not vast sums of money to be made, drug companies probably wouldn't bother to research new medicines at all. And, like it or not, drug reps do put money into NHS departments so there isn't really a way to do without them.
I personally wouldn't work for one, although I'm reluctant to work for any kind of profit-making business so that's not to do with drug reps per se.
I don't know if you've ever read the book The Corporation (there was also a film of the book which I have not seen) but it addresses a lot of these issues in quite an interesting way.
I think all medical advances also rely on educational investment too, I think you are kind of falsely crediting pharmaceutical companies with altruism/goodness there they do it for a profit, I am sure they would also withold something if it would make them go bust. I am sure that some individuals who start working for these companies will have higher ideals as the driving force for their specialisation, but dont kid yourself that working for a pharma giant is a 'good thing'
Drug companies do tend to make educational investments into hospitals and so forth.
and the people doing the work need to be able to afford to live. and need an organisational structure to support them.
both of which these companies provide.
I think there's quite a good argument saying taht working for a pharma giant is a good thing.
TGWNU ... you says it's deplorable to make money out of illness but you work in a hospital? a contradiction?
all that Nazi research from them torturing people. That didn't go to waste. Nice. :-/
sorry, misquotation .... the person said that almost every medical advance in their career was brought about as a result of investment by drug companies. and i'm not really bothered about doing 'good' .. i just wouldn't be willing to work for certain companies that are unequivocally evil
i suppose the less extreme point, is that companies make unfairly high profits for shareholders. and that this kind of research shouldnt really be done in the private sector.
i guess i would agree with that. but it's not like you'd be able to get the appropriate "educational capital" if such research was publicly funded.
Obviously to an extent I'm a hypocrite. But I need to live. And frankly I think it's hard for anyone who doesn't really like capitalism to live in a capitalist society and not be a hypocrite.
What I specifically meant was that it's deplorable to make vast profits and get rich out of human sickness.
Obviously hospitals need people to work in them, and those people need to make a living. But, although I make enough to live in London on, I'm not especially well-paid. I'd make more money in the private sector.
I just re-read what I wrote and I neveer actually said "it's deplorable to make money out of illness" but "to make profit". So I said exactly what I meant.
I don't think I implied that there's anything wrong with earning a reasonable wage from working in or around medicine.
right you are, but are they not the same thing?
what if you were a cardiothorasic surgeon? would you then be a hypocrite, since you'd almost certainly be earning a six figure salary?
But working as cardiothoracic surgeon at least involves using your own knowledge and skills to cure people.
Unlike being a major share-holder in a pharmaeceutical company when you may not even know the first thing about medicine/science, just have enough money to invest and withdraw a profit.
frankly, i wish shareholders did sit around long enough to withdraw a profit .... your logic would suggest that mortgage lenders are immoral too
are the UK subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc.
In August 2005, a Texas jury found Merck & Co. Inc. negligent in the death of a man taking its popular painkiller Vioxx and awarded his widow $253 million.
In a different case, Merck & Co was ordered to pay $9 million in damages to a 77-year-old man who had a heart attack after taking Vioxx, concluding the drug maker misled the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about the painkiller's heart risks.
The jury also concluded that Merck violated the state's consumer fraud law. Mr McDarby is now confined to a wheelchair and was not in Court for the verdict due to his ill health but his wife was. After the verdict Irma McDarby, "We've had very little to work with. Now he can get care for everything he needs."
Among the evidence presented by McDarby's attorneys was an October 2000 internal Merck analysis that found a higher cardiovascular risk with Vioxx. Plaintiff lawyers said Merck never submitted this analysis to the FDA.
Vioxx is estimated to have been used by about 20 million Americans before it was withdrawn, and had $2.5 billion in sales in 2003. According to many experts it has caused 60,000 deaths worldwide. Dr David Graham, a senior US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official, told a Senate committee in November 2004: "This would be the rough equivalent of 500 to 900 aircraft dropping from the sky".
In Britain it is estimated that the drug was responsible for the deaths of 2000 people. Oxford University were commisioned by Merck in order to find out if the Vioxx could help in the treatment of colon cancer, however those overseeing the drug trial, called 'Victor' - at Oxford University, never told the patients of the possible lethal consequences of taking the drug, which had already been clearly identified in the US.
Even MY life isn't worth that much!
thanks for bringing that to my attention ....
though I see your point.
The way I see it everyone has to earn a wage and it's perfectly acceptable to earn what you need to earn to get by and have a decent life.
However I don't think it's acceptable to make vast amounts of money that are considerably more than you need to live a decent life on out of working with sick people.
Consultants and Surgeon are a tricky one where they obviously make a fair bit of money more so than they need but they do work a huge amount of hours and study for years in exchage so it's arguably fair.
However heads of drug companies make millions of pounds out of sick people and I find that unacceptable personally.
wants to make money for its shareholders, I am not questioning the ethics of those actually working, the problem is that if individuals suffer because of the drugs that benefit most of the takers but seriously hurt a few, then it looks very ugly if anyone is not recompensed massivly whilst there is still enough to pay handsome dividends.......it also ewncourages company lawyers to try to avoid paying compensation......profit can sometimes lead to short cuts to be taken, unfortunately one would also need to consider, if a company produced a cheap cure all (hypothetical) ....ok a cheap easy to make drug that might ultimately put them out of business (maybe rendering another very profitable line irrelevant) then would the finance side of the pharma giant actually allow that to happen? wouldnt they just sit on it? I dont know? Im just saying that ultimately although the promise of huge bucks in profit attract huge investment it also is antagonistic to humans ultimate well being if it conflicts with profits.
Also much of medicical expenditure is on a few things that are 'high profile' there are many low cost medical solutions that would ultimately save more/improve more lives per buck......of course the demographic of who would benefit would change, mainly towards the third world (I know some people dont like that term) and of course I am a hippocrit in the way nousername described previously, simply because I am a part of of the system, and of course I would want any treatment going to save my kids, (if it had been developed).
No one is perfect and I am not suggesting that pharma giants are all ultimately evil.....its just that since their business is to make money, neither are they altruistic
yes they are. You'll fit in fine there.
it's them or the IDF. Anything to piss you off, really
ha! so I was right...you were bragging about some job you've been offered. Am I right?
well, i wasn't so bragging ... publically grappling with my conscience, like