Cost of developing new drugs may be lower than industry claims: trial

IDK about your philosophy, but any death that is 100% unavoidable invalidates the entire system of business that has been built.

Nothing in this world is above a life. Not money, not profit, not a quarterly bonus. Zilch, nada, zero.

I'm biased, obviously, but by principle, I refuse to accept a system that accepts avoidable deaths as a "necessary" consequence of their business model.

Yes but when you talk about system-wide decisions, it's not really clear which one will save the most lives.

If drug companies are made to sell drug x cheaper, maybe they end up charging more for drug y, or now they can no longer afford to invent drug z.

So we can look at someone dying for lack of $800 and say that's clearly a big mistake, but it's not clear what trade-offs and adjustments would make the system solve this problem without also making even worse mistakes elsewhere.

To measure our system, the best you can probably do is population-wide stats, like life expectancy, infant mortality, maybe average height (healthier populations being taller). On those metrics, we're making tremendous progress.

> IDK about your philosophy, but any death that is 100% unavoidable invalidates the entire system of business that has been built.

Assuming you meant avoidable, I don't think there is ANY system of business that avoids EVERY avoidable death. Often saving each life may be 100% possible, but it may not be possible to save every life. As a real example, I would guess most civilians in Gaza that will die in the next month could have their death avoided if their singular life were the #1 priority of every around them. However, I do not think the humanitarian crisis in Gaza can be entirely solved within the next month so that no civilian will die (even assuming cooperation from both sides and massive external aid).

The absolutism in your comments is not conducive to productive conversation. I would guess there are many people on HN that are too pro capitalism and don't recognize how it fails many people, but being absolutist to the point of impossibilities does not make you convincing.

Sorry, yes I meant avoidable.

I'm aiming this in terms of businesses and corporations, not international conflicts and wars.

Ultimately, when it comes to businesses and corporations that are in direct connection with life and death (e.g., drug companies, architecture firms, power companies, water companies, etc), then everything must be done within their power to ensure that the risk of death is minimized as much as humanly possible. Either by de-prioritizing profits, ensuring equitable access, or any other measures that are necessary.

I understand that a company has to make a profit somewhere. But a drug company that manufactures a drug for $4/pill and then selling it for $10,000/month to treat a disease that will kill without it - all while using taxpayer funds/grants/federal money to fund the research is heinous, greedy, and antithetical to what it means to be a human in a society.

Private power companies (like my local one, Georgia Power) making $2bn/year charging $180/month for a 1 bedroom, 660sqft apartment is criminal. Especially as I understand and knew many families growing up that would spend half their month with no power until their next paycheck.

It's on me that my original comment was absolutist, but it's my principles.

> I refuse to accept a system that accepts avoidable deaths as a "necessary" consequence of their business model.

Your first line doesn't just exclude systems that "accept" such things, it sounds like it excludes every system that isn't perfect.

In other words, it excludes all big systems. Your world would collapse immediately.

Though whether the line I quoted means the same thing depends on what you mean by "accepts". Is always striving for better enough? Or do you demand unrealistic expectations? Mistakes are inevitable; is "inevitable" different from "necessary"?