Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

[Sushan]

I do not think they are entirely driven by the motive for intellectual property rights, or the patent. Many large pharmaceutical companies target for a big profit, and they try to innovate drugs that can become breakthroughs in various fields. But the R&D requirement is highly costly for the process and many efforts can end up in total failure, not because of their motive is bad but that is how it works. And when we think about the budget that they have to go for the approval process I do not think expecting intellectual property rights can be taken as an entirely bad and a selfish thing.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

To my ear, the use of the "failing" to describe cancer treatment, is the wrong approach. We all assume that an author of a book on a particular subject is well versed in the subject matter. Thus such wording makes me wonder about the background of the author, a lawyer by training.

Cancers are generally curable if caught early enough with conventional treatment. Thus as a general rule (with exceptions, of course) the types of cancers with bad reputations are those that are typically diagnosed later in advanced stages. Thus the problem isn't better treatments, it is better diagnostics.

If someone gets a cavity in their tooth, but shows up very late in the process, the tooth might not be able to be saved. Should we call that "failing" in cavity treatment? I don't. Perhaps the reason for the patient showing up late was financial, maybe they have a fear of dentists, maybe there was a pandemic and their dentist's office was shutdown. I agree that better dental insurance and outreach to the community to address the fear of dentists could get folks into the dentist earlier and more teeth could be "cured". Regardless, inventing a sharper drill bit isn't going to save a tooth that's too far gone.

[Lunastella]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

I agree patients should be informed consumers of health-care. Traditional medicine is one option. Alternative medicine is another. No one condemns herbalists for promoting herbs or the chiropractor for promoting spine manipulation, thus it is reasonable to expect traditional medicine practitioners to do their thing. Similarly pharmaceutical houses make synthetic drugs, that's what they do. If someone's natural tonic isn't being supported, isn't that kind of the bailiwick of the supplement people and the herbalists?

As to pharma enticing docs to use drug A instead of drug B, okay that can lead to waste since drug A is probably more expensive than B, but to imply that it is the wrong drug, ie bad medicine, is an overreach. And it certainly has nothing to do with cancer treatment efficacy.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

To my ear, the use of the "failing" to describe cancer treatment, is the wrong approach. We all assume that an author of a book on a particular subject is well versed in the subject matter. Thus such wording makes me wonder about the background of the author, a lawyer by training.

Cancers are generally curable if caught early enough with conventional treatment. Thus as a general rule (with exceptions, of course) the types of cancers with bad reputations are those that are typically diagnosed later in advanced stages. Thus the problem isn't better treatments, it is better diagnostics.

If someone gets a cavity in their tooth, but shows up very late in the process, the tooth might not be able to be saved. Should we call that "failing" in cavity treatment? I don't. Perhaps the reason for the patient showing up late was financial, maybe they have a fear of dentists, maybe there was a pandemic and their dentist's office was shutdown. I agree that better dental insurance and outreach to the community to address the fear of dentists could get folks into the dentist earlier and more teeth could be "cured". Regardless, inventing a sharper drill bit isn't going to save a tooth that's too far gone.

I agree that many factors matter when it comes to treating an illness. But the patient management part includes both investigations and treatments. Some time patients can be clinically diagnosed, but for the confirmation and staging we need investigations. Some cancers do not produce enough cancer markers to be detected even the patient presents at the early stages. Many cured ones are not actually cancers but are tumours (uncontrolled growths of cells, but not with malignant behaviours). There are many curable cancers too.

On the other hand, we can just screen people with various tests in order for early diagnosis. But the result is over diagnosis than early diagnosis, like which happens with PSA testing for Prostate Carcinoma. That will lead the patient to undergo unnecessary treatment.

So I think the whole thing comes with a delicate balance, and each and every situation, each and every patient has to be individually assesed and cared because the factors that are involved (medical, social, financial, etc.) are different from patient to patient and situation to situation.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

We have the same experience in my country. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies offer various incentives to doctors to prescribe the medicine that their companies produce. So most of the doctors prescribe the drugs by trade names instead of their generic names, which is totally wrong.

But at the same time we have first hand experience that some brands of the same drug give better results when some brands do not. In such occasions prescribing with the trade name gives more benefit for the patient, while at the same time it benefits the doctor as well.

Ultimately what is important is knowledge and the patients should be educated enough to choose what is best for them.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

To my ear, the use of the "failing" to describe cancer treatment, is the wrong approach. We all assume that an author of a book on a particular subject is well versed in the subject matter. Thus such wording makes me wonder about the background of the author, a lawyer by training.

Cancers are generally curable if caught early enough with conventional treatment. Thus as a general rule (with exceptions, of course) the types of cancers with bad reputations are those that are typically diagnosed later in advanced stages. Thus the problem isn't better treatments, it is better diagnostics.

If someone gets a cavity in their tooth, but shows up very late in the process, the tooth might not be able to be saved. Should we call that "failing" in cavity treatment? I don't. Perhaps the reason for the patient showing up late was financial, maybe they have a fear of dentists, maybe there was a pandemic and their dentist's office was shutdown. I agree that better dental insurance and outreach to the community to address the fear of dentists could get folks into the dentist earlier and more teeth could be "cured". Regardless, inventing a sharper drill bit isn't going to save a tooth that's too far gone.

I agree that many factors matter when it comes to treating an illness. But the patient management part includes both investigations and treatments. Some time patients can be clinically diagnosed, but for the confirmation and staging we need investigations. Some cancers do not produce enough cancer markers to be detected even the patient presents at the early stages. Many cured ones are not actually cancers but are tumours (uncontrolled growths of cells, but not with malignant behaviours). There are many curable cancers too.

On the other hand, we can just screen people with various tests in order for early diagnosis. But the result is over diagnosis than early diagnosis, like which happens with PSA testing for Prostate Carcinoma. That will lead the patient to undergo unnecessary treatment.

So I think the whole thing comes with a delicate balance, and each and every situation, each and every patient has to be individually assesed and cared because the factors that are involved (medical, social, financial, etc.) are different from patient to patient and situation to situation.

I totally agree with you that that is the current situation. I was looking to the future and predicting that it will be technically more feasable to invent earlier detection modalities (and save more patients with currently curable early stage treatments) than inventing better treatments for late stage disease.

[LuckyR]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:

As long as the pharmaceutical companies' quest for innovation is solely driven by intellectual property rights, they will keep failing in the war on cancer.

Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

We have the same experience in my country. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies offer various incentives to doctors to prescribe the medicine that their companies produce. So most of the doctors prescribe the drugs by trade names instead of their generic names, which is totally wrong.

But at the same time we have first hand experience that some brands of the same drug give better results when some brands do not. In such occasions prescribing with the trade name gives more benefit for the patient, while at the same time it benefits the doctor as well.

Ultimately what is important is knowledge and the patients should be educated enough to choose what is best for them.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If brand name (more expensive) drugs give better results than generic, why is the drug company's incentives to prescribe them "wrong"?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:



Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

To my ear, the use of the "failing" to describe cancer treatment, is the wrong approach. We all assume that an author of a book on a particular subject is well versed in the subject matter. Thus such wording makes me wonder about the background of the author, a lawyer by training.

Cancers are generally curable if caught early enough with conventional treatment. Thus as a general rule (with exceptions, of course) the types of cancers with bad reputations are those that are typically diagnosed later in advanced stages. Thus the problem isn't better treatments, it is better diagnostics.

If someone gets a cavity in their tooth, but shows up very late in the process, the tooth might not be able to be saved. Should we call that "failing" in cavity treatment? I don't. Perhaps the reason for the patient showing up late was financial, maybe they have a fear of dentists, maybe there was a pandemic and their dentist's office was shutdown. I agree that better dental insurance and outreach to the community to address the fear of dentists could get folks into the dentist earlier and more teeth could be "cured". Regardless, inventing a sharper drill bit isn't going to save a tooth that's too far gone.

I agree that many factors matter when it comes to treating an illness. But the patient management part includes both investigations and treatments. Some time patients can be clinically diagnosed, but for the confirmation and staging we need investigations. Some cancers do not produce enough cancer markers to be detected even the patient presents at the early stages. Many cured ones are not actually cancers but are tumours (uncontrolled growths of cells, but not with malignant behaviours). There are many curable cancers too.

On the other hand, we can just screen people with various tests in order for early diagnosis. But the result is over diagnosis than early diagnosis, like which happens with PSA testing for Prostate Carcinoma. That will lead the patient to undergo unnecessary treatment.

So I think the whole thing comes with a delicate balance, and each and every situation, each and every patient has to be individually assesed and cared because the factors that are involved (medical, social, financial, etc.) are different from patient to patient and situation to situation.

I totally agree with you that that is the current situation. I was looking to the future and predicting that it will be technically more feasable to invent earlier detection modalities (and save more patients with currently curable early stage treatments) than inventing better treatments for late stage disease.

Yes, it is better if the diagnostic methods are improved into more sensitive and specific tests. As I see even today's medical technology is really advance. But the problem occurs when it comes to decision making with the results.

i.e. PSA can be increased for reasons other than Prostate Cancer

So it will be a great advancement if more sensitive and specific tests can be invented, and then medical decisions will be more accurate and ultimately the benefit will go to the patients. Good thought.

[Sushan]

This topic is about the July 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, Winning the War on Cancer.


Here is one of the many quotes from the book that I highlighted while reading, which was on page 161 of my copy of the book:



Do you agree with this quote? If not, with which part of the author's arguments from that chapter do you disagree specifically?

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

We have the same experience in my country. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies offer various incentives to doctors to prescribe the medicine that their companies produce. So most of the doctors prescribe the drugs by trade names instead of their generic names, which is totally wrong.

But at the same time we have first hand experience that some brands of the same drug give better results when some brands do not. In such occasions prescribing with the trade name gives more benefit for the patient, while at the same time it benefits the doctor as well.

Ultimately what is important is knowledge and the patients should be educated enough to choose what is best for them.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If brand name (more expensive) drugs give better results than generic, why is the drug company's incentives to prescribe them "wrong"?

Actually the companies do not give incentives to prescribe wrong drugs. Their sole intention is to advertise their product. The comparison is done when the drugs are being used within the population.

Many drugs exert similar effects whether they are given in the generic form or a specific brand. But for some reason we have seen that in my country some of the generic drugs are low in quality as well as the potency. Maybe this is done intentionally with the intervention of the big pharmaceutical companies, and we may even never know that.

Being educated about the drug varieties, their prices and effects will give the opportunity to the patients to go for the best drug as per the cost, and which will give them the best result.

[LuckyR]

The author was subtle. I guess as long as there's money we will keep failing the war not only on cancer but on disease. I can't talk about the US healthcare system first-hand because I'm not from the US, but in my country, medical representatives offer lots of money (or trips, prizes, etc.) to doctors to push certain drugs. So I don't doubt what Ms. Beljanski claims happened to her father is true. And I don't doubt there are a lot of deals being made under the table. I don't think we should be extreme; sometimes we need traditional medicine. But I think it's essential to be informed and to empower patients to take their health into their hands.

We have the same experience in my country. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies offer various incentives to doctors to prescribe the medicine that their companies produce. So most of the doctors prescribe the drugs by trade names instead of their generic names, which is totally wrong.

But at the same time we have first hand experience that some brands of the same drug give better results when some brands do not. In such occasions prescribing with the trade name gives more benefit for the patient, while at the same time it benefits the doctor as well.

Ultimately what is important is knowledge and the patients should be educated enough to choose what is best for them.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If brand name (more expensive) drugs give better results than generic, why is the drug company's incentives to prescribe them "wrong"?

Actually the companies do not give incentives to prescribe wrong drugs. Their sole intention is to advertise their product. The comparison is done when the drugs are being used within the population.

Many drugs exert similar effects whether they are given in the generic form or a specific brand. But for some reason we have seen that in my country some of the generic drugs are low in quality as well as the potency. Maybe this is done intentionally with the intervention of the big pharmaceutical companies, and we may even never know that.

Being educated about the drug varieties, their prices and effects will give the opportunity to the patients to go for the best drug as per the cost, and which will give them the best result.

Ah so. Well in the absence of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), there may be a lack of testing to verify that generics have the same active ingredients. Caveat emptor.

[Sushan]

We have the same experience in my country. Representatives of pharmaceutical companies offer various incentives to doctors to prescribe the medicine that their companies produce. So most of the doctors prescribe the drugs by trade names instead of their generic names, which is totally wrong.

But at the same time we have first hand experience that some brands of the same drug give better results when some brands do not. In such occasions prescribing with the trade name gives more benefit for the patient, while at the same time it benefits the doctor as well.

Ultimately what is important is knowledge and the patients should be educated enough to choose what is best for them.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If brand name (more expensive) drugs give better results than generic, why is the drug company's incentives to prescribe them "wrong"?

Actually the companies do not give incentives to prescribe wrong drugs. Their sole intention is to advertise their product. The comparison is done when the drugs are being used within the population.

Many drugs exert similar effects whether they are given in the generic form or a specific brand. But for some reason we have seen that in my country some of the generic drugs are low in quality as well as the potency. Maybe this is done intentionally with the intervention of the big pharmaceutical companies, and we may even never know that.

Being educated about the drug varieties, their prices and effects will give the opportunity to the patients to go for the best drug as per the cost, and which will give them the best result.

Ah so. Well in the absence of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), there may be a lack of testing to verify that generics have the same active ingredients. Caveat emptor.

FDA or whatever the authority that is responsible for the quality of the medicine cannot check each and every tablet for their quality. So they get a sample, check it, and give the whole lot the stamp of approval. If the big companies have the will, they can find enough ways to fool these authorities. So, yes, buyer should be aware of this.

But at the same time a buyer too cannot check the quality of the medicine, can he? So it is hard to beware as well.

[LuckyR]

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying. If brand name (more expensive) drugs give better results than generic, why is the drug company's incentives to prescribe them "wrong"?

Actually the companies do not give incentives to prescribe wrong drugs. Their sole intention is to advertise their product. The comparison is done when the drugs are being used within the population.

Many drugs exert similar effects whether they are given in the generic form or a specific brand. But for some reason we have seen that in my country some of the generic drugs are low in quality as well as the potency. Maybe this is done intentionally with the intervention of the big pharmaceutical companies, and we may even never know that.

Being educated about the drug varieties, their prices and effects will give the opportunity to the patients to go for the best drug as per the cost, and which will give them the best result.

Ah so. Well in the absence of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), there may be a lack of testing to verify that generics have the same active ingredients. Caveat emptor.

FDA or whatever the authority that is responsible for the quality of the medicine cannot check each and every tablet for their quality. So they get a sample, check it, and give the whole lot the stamp of approval. If the big companies have the will, they can find enough ways to fool these authorities. So, yes, buyer should be aware of this.

But at the same time a buyer too cannot check the quality of the medicine, can he? So it is hard to beware as well.

Big companies have far too much to lose (huge mark up on name brands) to risk their good name on nickel and diming on diluting their product. Fly by night off brands who can't command high price points are going to be where shenanigans are going to be found.

[Sushan]

Actually the companies do not give incentives to prescribe wrong drugs. Their sole intention is to advertise their product. The comparison is done when the drugs are being used within the population.

Many drugs exert similar effects whether they are given in the generic form or a specific brand. But for some reason we have seen that in my country some of the generic drugs are low in quality as well as the potency. Maybe this is done intentionally with the intervention of the big pharmaceutical companies, and we may even never know that.

Being educated about the drug varieties, their prices and effects will give the opportunity to the patients to go for the best drug as per the cost, and which will give them the best result.

Ah so. Well in the absence of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), there may be a lack of testing to verify that generics have the same active ingredients. Caveat emptor.

FDA or whatever the authority that is responsible for the quality of the medicine cannot check each and every tablet for their quality. So they get a sample, check it, and give the whole lot the stamp of approval. If the big companies have the will, they can find enough ways to fool these authorities. So, yes, buyer should be aware of this.

But at the same time a buyer too cannot check the quality of the medicine, can he? So it is hard to beware as well.

Big companies have far too much to lose (huge mark up on name brands) to risk their good name on nickel and diming on diluting their product. Fly by night off brands who can't command high price points are going to be where shenanigans are going to be found.

Exactly my point. Big companies will never reduce the quality of their products. But to promote their brands over the cheap generics they may influence those generics to be made in poor quality. And in most occasions the generic drug producers are bought by these large companies. So ultimately the generics drugs will be given for free by government maintained hospitals, but people will see that they are not curing them. Then the brands come into play and they get hold of the market. I am not sure whether this happens eeverywhere, but it happens in my country.