From the Article by S. Craddock: The philosopher
Giorgio Agamben’s depiction of “bare life” as life that can be killed but not
sacrificed because it has no political relevance, in the age of modern
biopolitics, where sovereign forces such as governments and corporations
possess as part of their powers the “right to decide on the value or the non-value
of life as such.”
That observation as
one may call it, really cut at my heart.
AIDS is not a new pandemic, yet the pharmaceutical companies have not
made headway in terms of finding a vaccine to intervene in this global tragedy.
Could this be because AIDS is no longer a trending topic in the developing
world, and celebrities such as Magic Johnson has shown that we could like a
healthy and productive life with the disease? But the reality is that the
resources that Magic Johnson has at his disposal is not available to those in
poor hard-hit countries. AIDS is prevalent in low-income areas and developing
countries with little vaccine purchasing power. Less than 1% of the $70 billion
spent annually on health product research is earmarked for AIDS vaccine
research. The developing countries do not have the resources to develop their
own vaccines or research. The developed countries with pharmaceuticals
companies that are corporate-dominated, medical capitalism, does not see a
value in developing a vaccine, because the market that desperately needs it
does not have the capital by which to make a profit. This to me seems morally bankrupt
and corrupt, however because of governmental structures that have been set up
such that economic considerations are weighed above the loss of life. This
creates a structural violence paradigm that gives corporations the right to
decide how valuable the life of poor and hard-hit countries are, and if the
people are worth saving. Public private partnerships have been trying to work through
this contradiction, focusing on vaccines for HIV sub-types in hard-hit areas. However,
I fear that we have ceded or moral authority
to corporate profits that obfuscate the sanctity of life and thus we will see
that this not only affects developing countries, but as in the case of the epi
pen debacle, it will be widespread and catastrophic, affecting all aspect of
life and health.
Chris, you have worded this so powerfully, and it is indeed a grave issue. I work on a clinical trial for diabetes management in Lafayette, and I get to enter all the participants' medications into the system, and the variety is INCREDIBLE. So many meds for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, weight loss, asthma, acid reflux, erectile dysfunction.. the list goes on and on. All of these medications were funded and developed because people were willing to pay for that to happen. Granted, drug development is not cheap, but that doesn't make it any less heartbreaking that HIV research doesn't seem to be moving along as fast as we would like it to. With the recent HIV outbreak in Southern Indiana (due to drug use, which has been on the rise in some affluent areas in the United States, even suburban teens), I wonder if more funding will be given to nailing down an HIV vaccine once and for all. Does a disease have to come to the United States to receive attention? Time will tell.
ReplyDeleteChristelene, I think you raise a good point. Developed countries are not considering HIV and AIDS as big of threats anymore. As we too often see, any research that does not have immediate or applicable results does not receive funding. The concern of higher priced prescriptions gets me extremely riled up. I started out in pre-pharmacy at Purdue. In one of my classes we had an Eli Lilly pharmacist come in and speak. He said the reason for prescription medications to be so high was because of the cost of research and patents. I say bull-crap! If you are truly concerned with helping people you will find a way to get around these extreme rates or at least take a pay cut. There is something seriously wrong with the whole system. We need to figure this out sooner rather than later.
ReplyDelete