Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Don't you think any other intelligent consultant could duplicate your reasoning that it's a bad idea to research a drug that cures disease X instead of a drug that keeps a X-patient forced _forever_ to buy drugs that will extend his life?
Capitalism has no compassion :-/
Doesn't that become a pricing issue?
My wife is two-thirds of the way through her chemotherapy, plus a radiotherapy treatment yet to come, and then many years of Tamoxifen still to come after that.
While the pharmaceutical costs of all this must be high (and therefore the return to the drug companies lucrative), I wouldn't hesitate to mortgage our house to pay for a "cure".
Even on a basic financial cost, the price I would pay for a cure is the future value of the next 5 years of Tamoxifen, plus the cost of the Neurolastin for the next few months, plus the cost of the Epirubicin, Flourouracil and Cyclophosphamide currently being used, plus the cost of all the palliatives used to survive the treating drugs. Therefore, at that minimum a drug company could reasonably expect to be able to charge that much for its cure drug.
Additionally, the drug company with the cure gets all of my money, whereas the maker of each treatment drug gets only the money for their component of the treatment package. Again, the return is higher for the cure.
On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to go through the second and third operations she went through, or the reconstructions she faces next year? The answer is I would pay anything for a cure drug.
Cheers Russell C.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
