Cynicism aside, I believe that there must be a cure/vaccine/syrum/make-better-mabob for HIV/AIDS out there. My appreciation for the medical complexity of it all is not naive, but the faith remains.
The reason I’m writing about it here is because the question I want to put forth is entirely business related. Indulge my fanciful mind, would you: if, through research funded entirely by me and through a private facility/organisation I create for these very purposes, I - or the researchers under my employ - find the cure for HIV/AIDS, would it be ethical to sell the cure? (selling the cure could take the form of actually packaging and retailing it or reselling the rights to a big pharmaceutical).
Before answering the question, let’s not kid ourselves, treating HIV/AIDS is a multi-billion dollar business, the cure for it would be worth a lot of money. And I make reference not just to the more taxing process of manufacturing and selling, I’m talking just the resale of the formula to another pharmaceutical would be worth (tens of?) billions of dollars.
I ask the question - and relate it to ethics - because we know, priced to retail, the cure may be extremely expensive, if for no reason other than the insane demand for it. It’d be good business in that it’s not a commodity, whoever owned the rights for it would ostensibly own a monopoly for a considerable people and many people will pay well, well, well above the odds allowing for absolute maximisation of profits.
The issue with this pricing, however, is that many of the needy are likely to be too poor to afford it - without it being heavily subsidised, at the very least. About two thirds of HIV/AIDS sufferers live in Sub-Saharan Africa meaning, economically at least, this cure won’t necessarily be accessible to many sufferers.
If the scenario I offer were to occur with the necessary dynamics - maximum profits only possible at prohibitive pricing - would the appeasing of shareholders (in my example, solely me! In the case of a big pharmaceutical, plenty of people) not be tantamount to the “killing” of those excluded?
I’m trying to avoid becoming overly philosophical here, nor do I want to pass judgement. I want to start a conversation around the issue.
Of course, there’s two alternatives: firstly, pricing the cure so as to be affordable by most, if not everybody or, secondly, giving the cure away (making it public domain, I suppose) such that governments and private institutions can continue development, mass production and distribution of the cure.
Where do we draw the line regarding financial gain? Am I overcomplicating something that isn’t all that complex?
