Murder or suicide?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intercat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not arguing with your logic. And, I have not only become cynical in my old age, but bitter, as well. I try hard not to be, but it’s always just under the surface. I’m not the only person in history with a tough life, but there is no light at the end of this tunnel, and what light I may see, I fear is an oncoming train. I thank you sincerely for your patience and willingness to discourse with me and your insight. You have a very nice way about you. Good “bedside manner.” I appreciate it. I know there is no cut and dried answer to my question. I think I always did, but there are just so many horror stories out THERE. I want to compartmentalize. Black and white. Enjoy Super Bowl Sunday. 🏈🍺🍕
 
Last edited:
Thistle is a little rough around the edges. I consider everyone’s point. That’s why I asked in the first place. I want opinions, explanations, if possible, and then I can make up my mind. I need to do some research. Some times, you hear something as a child which is untrue, but in your naïveté, you think it’s hard fact and grow up believing it to be. I’m thinking this is part of my situation. Believing the wrong thing for over half a century isn’t easy to accept.
 
Last edited:
Never thought it was exactly a “scheme.” Ok. I get it. It costs $$$ to make drugs. They have to recoup their losses, but at what cost to the patient?
 
Last edited:
Intercat said:
Never thought it was exactly a “scheme.” Ok. I get it. It costs $$$ to make drugs. They have to recoup their losses, but at what cost to the patient?
Click to expand...
If you’re asking if they can morally “price out” people in order to stay in business, the answer is yes. There is no church teaching that requires medicine–or even food–to be free. What is required is for those producers to act morally in regards to pricing–ie not price gouge. So veggies easy to produce should always be cheap—but there’s no requirement for say, pineapple, to be affordable. Even if thats the only fruit/veg with a critical vitiman.
 
Intercat said:
They have to recoup their losses, but at what cost to the patient?
Click to expand...
Why do you apply this thinking to the pharma company but not to the rest of society which has no less an obligation to “love of neighbor”? Why?
 
Intercat said:
I know there is no cut and dried answer to my question.
Click to expand...
Yes there is. There is such a cut and dried answer because you posed a specific and extreme charge - citing murder.

If you want shades of grey you need to ask a different question. Such as: “do we fail to love our neighbor when we purchase luxury cars rather than give to charity?”
 
Because they are in an entirely different position. What other manufacturer has a product that is essential to a person’s ability to live? Medications are necessary for people to avoid death from certain illnesses. Certainly, quality of life is impacted. Plain and simple. Hold back the meds, and you raise the possibility of someone’s unnecessarily earlier-than-it-should-be demise.
 
Last edited:
Intercat said:
Because they are in an entirely different position. What other manufacturer has a product that is essential to a person’s ability to live? Medications are necessary for people to avoid death from certain illnesses. Certainly, quality of life is impacted. Plain and simple. Hold back the meds, and you raise the possibility of someone’s unnecessarily earlier-than-it-should-be demise.
Click to expand...
So all inventions should be free?

You speak of medicine–but what about medically implanted devices? Should titanium screws be free?

You keep approaching this time and time again as if there is something immoral about drugs costing money.

You are aware that if these things did not make money they would stop being produced? You are aware that there are hundreds–maybe even thousands–of abandoned non-profitable drugs that were life saving and have stopped being produced? Right?

So what then? Do producers have the moral obligation to produce medicine at astronomical losses because a few may live?
 
One responder says I’m looking for black and white. You say I’m looking for grey. Maybe we should ask the source. I’m looking for black and white, as I see things as black or white. The commandments are black and white. Thou shalt not kill. Period. No shades of grey. No extraneous circumstances considered. Thou shalt NOT… Period. My question is, if a Pharma company prices a drug out of patients’ reach, and they die because they can’t afford the meds, is it murder? I’m looking for a yes or no and why. There’s only one way I would accept a no response and that would be if they priced it only to get back what they paid to produce it. No profits considered. I got a response earlier commenting on investors getting money back encouraging them to reinvest in other drugs. The jury is still out on that.
 
Last edited:
Intercat said:
One responder says I’m looking for black and white. You say I’m looking for grey. Maybe we should ask the source. I’m looking for black and white, as I see things as black or white. The commandments are black and white. Thou shalt not kill. Period. No shades of grey. No extraneous circumstances considered. Thou shalt NOT… Period. My question is, if a Pharma company prices a drug out of patients’ reach, and they die because they can’t afford the meds, is it murder? I’m looking for a yes or no and why. There’s only one way I would accept a no response and that would be if they priced it only to get back what they paid to produce it. No profits considered. I got a response earlier commenting on investors getting money back encouraging them to reinvest in other drugs. The jury is still out on that.
Click to expand...
But that commandment ISN’T “black and white”

You CAN kill.
You can kill in a just war.
You can kill if someone is going to harm you or your family.
You can kill if you are in an occupation to protect innocent people.

Again, what do you say about abandoned drugs that can no longer be made and sold even for cost?
 
Last edited:
What is the price to be put on a human life?
 
Last edited:
And Muslims believe they can kill all “infidels” in the name of Allah. Does that make it right? Pharma is a cursed necessity. When you think of all the people in this country who are wealthy (I’m doing my best not to say top 1% because of its political implications) regardless of how they receive their money. They have no issues receiving necessary medications. Why is Bill Gates’ life more important than mine? Or Tom Brady’s? Or Beyoncé’s? Because they can afford necessary, life-saving medications. I’ve read everything you have stated over the last couple of days, and I understand where you are coming from, but I have to ask, who put the price tags on human life?
 
Last edited:
Intercat said:
What is the price to be put on a human life?
Click to expand...
Whose life? The person who harvests the materials for the drug? The lineman who runs quality control? The pharmacist who counts and delivers the pills?

Because all of those steps, even at the bare minimum come with a cost.

Oh wait.

You’re talking about ONLY the life of the recipient.

Wee bit short-sighted. Even if there was no profit involved some drugs are always going to be far, far out of reach. You suggest that there is a $ amount at which things become immoral.
 
Intercat said:
And Muslims believe they can kill all “infidels” in the name of Allah. Does that make it right? Pharma is a cursed necessity. When you think of all the people in this country who are wealthy (I’m doing my best not to say top 1% because of its political implications) regardless of how they receive their money. They have no issues receiving necessary medications. Why is Bill Gates’ life more important than mine? Or Tom Brady’s? Or Beyoncé’s? Because they can afford necessary, life-saving medications. I’ve read everything you have stated over the last couple of days, and I understand where you are coming from, but I have to ask, who put the price tags on human life?
Click to expand...
Our monetary system?

For instance, thyroid drugs are insanely expensive to produce. They are insanely expensive, therefore, to the consumer. So is it right to charge even at cost?

One can argue that there are abuses of those at the upper levels but you can’t simply make a level cost field for all drugs. Some common, life-saving drugs are always going to be inaccesable to the poor no matter what.
 
Intercat said:
Because they are in an entirely different position. What other manufacturer has a product that is essential to a person’s ability to live? Medications are necessary for people to avoid death from certain illnesses. Certainly, quality of life is impacted. Plain and simple. Hold back the meds, and you raise the possibility of someone’s unnecessarily earlier-than-it-should-be demise.
Click to expand...
That is no answer at all. You’ve missed, or avoided, the point entirely. You keep asserting, with no foundation, that the financial sacrifice - for the benefit of the poor - is to be made solely by the pharma company. Why? What about every citizen?
 
Intercat said:
My question is, if a Pharma company prices a drug out of patients’ reach, and they die because they can’t afford the meds, is it murder? I’m looking for a yes or no and why.
Click to expand...
The morality of acts is assessed based on the 3-font model described very briefly in the catechism. I have answered your question clearly and in light of the knowledge of that model.
 
Last edited:
Intercat said:
There’s only one way I would accept a no response and that would be if they priced it only to get back what they paid to produce it.
Click to expand...
That would put an end to research into drugs for which zero profit is the best case return. 🤷‍♂️

Why not propose a charitable fund be set up to meet the costs of drugs for the needy? Then you could charge anyone who was able to contribute, but did not, with murder. :roll_eyes: You would of course be wrong in making that charge too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top