This isn’t the “Church’s premise”. The Church, as I understand it, permits medical care for the mother. If the baby in the womb dies as a side effect of the medical care, then that is not considered sinful. However, many moms will refuse the medical care because they would rather not take a risk of their baby dying - they’d rather die themselves.Do you agree with (or understand) the Church’s premise that if a mother and child are at risk during the birth process, the mother should die and the child should live?
Martin Shkreli is an attention-seeking unprintable word, and is pretty much detested and thought to be a creep by everybody in the pharma industry, everybody involved with pharma law, and everybody who has anything to do with pharma.What about Martin Shkreli?
Ethics gets you so far. Ethics + the possibility of looking really bad in public and opening the door to the government taking all kinds of undesirable actions and ultimately, losing lots of $ will get you a long, long way. Those not motivated by ethics will be motivated by financial and reputational risk.So. Self preservation?
If I need two things and can’t have them both, then I must choose. That does not mean that choosing the wrong one must be a sin.Intention would be if you have $20 and you need a script that cost $15 and you need $20 to get gas. Do you NEED gas? You NEED your meds.
Not to mention that it’s not like students and the US government is paying for the research. They do factor in. But many times the research is via private grants—which are from the pharma companies anyway. It works out fairly well because students are cheap labor and well-funded schools get good students.Pharma companies are still doing plenty of R&D. Sure, a lot of it may be done in conjunction with academia and perhaps funded at least in part by grants or some source other than the pharma company - which also affects whether the company will be able to get a patent, although sometimes they can still get an exclusive license. When a pharma company is planning its business strategy, it takes all this into account.
Most articles written about Big Pharma are heavily agenda-driven and should generally be taken with several large grains of salt.
That is not what the Church says.Do you agree with (or understand) the Church’s premise that if a mother and child are at risk during the birth process, the mother should die and the child should live?
Excellent question. Regardless the answer, I think the question reveals that for-profit healthcare is a morally dubious proposition.If a person dies because the cost of his/her medication is too high, and s/he can’t afford to buy it, is it considered suicide or murder? If pharmaceutical companies price medication knowing that it’s out of reach to some, there is INTENTION. If someone knows not taking certain meds will cause death, there is also INTENTION.
What? There is no such premise. Two lives are at risk and the medical team have 2 patients.Do you agree with (or understand) the Church’s premise that if a mother and child are at risk during the birth process, the mother should die and the child should live?
There never was such a premise. You were misled or misunderstood. There is a premise that a person - eg. The child - may not be killed. So (with a view to conditions long ago) it was never acceptable to intentionally crush the skull of a child too large to be born.The Church may have changed that particular premise since I learned it. That was a long time ago. May I inquire as to on what do you base your answer?
As was already stated, the Church has never taught such a thing.The Church may have changed that particular premise since I learned it