Hey!
I just thought I would share a section of an essay I wrote in May. Genuinely, if you didn't hate the BPs before, you will after this! I appreciate that this is not specifically about nicotine but I'd like to show you the information I discovered. I am able to share this with you now because my final grade for my masters has been decided (distinction!).
To add some context to this essay, the title was 'What does it mean to speak of evil as 'banal'? How might the documenation of 'social suffering' expose the 'banality of evil' in our times?'
For those who haven't read the book, Hannah Arendt wrote a book about the Eichmann Trial and described his evil as 'banal' because he effectively signed the death warrants for millions of people during the genocide in Nazi occupied Europe. He was a pen-pusher, a bureaucrat. He ticked a box and went home to his family. This is not to say that the evils of his crime are no less horrendous, but that human beings are capable of such evil by ticking a box or signing a form. It's a hotly contested book and if you'd like to debate it's merits, let's do it elsewhere. I present this section of my essay for the statistics and the historical details within, not the philosophical debate.
Please, go ahead and read... I'd be interested to know your response.x
P.S. If this makes you angry, you should read the section on mobile phones!!!
In the mid 1980s, Western society became aware of a new, incurable disease. HIV and AIDS medications to slow the progression of the disease have been made available but these are costly. In 1999, Monbiot reported that twenty-two percent of pregnant women in South Africa were HIV positive and within ten years, the average life expectancy would drop from fifty-nine to forty years of age (Monbiot, 1999). The South African Government began taking steps to produce cheaper, generic versions of antiretroviral drugs to prevent the spread of the disease from mother to foetus and to lessen the chances of contracting the disease after rape. A new law passed allowed the Government to compulsorily purchase the rights to drugs or buy the drugs more cheaply from countries producing them. Some research into HIV and AIDS medication had been publically funded but the United States Congress overwhelmingly voted to prevent the South African Government from manufacturing the drugs which could have saved many thousands of lives. Had South Africa succeeded the pharmaceutical companies share values would have decreased and, as Monbiot scathingly wrote, nothing, even the lives of millions, can be permitted to threaten the value of their shares (Monbiot, 1999).
Stavudine was invented at Yale University in 1994. Between 1994 and 2002, the drug had earned the university two hundred and sixty one million dollars. In the United States, daily use of the drug would cost the patient $8.66 but in South Africa, the drug could be bought for the daily cost of $4.46, however, this was still far too expensive for widespread use. While one inventor of the drug, Dr William Prusoff, was happy for the drug to be widespread, saying people shouldnt die for economic reasons, because they cant afford the drug. If Aids was completely solved and no royalties came in, I would be very happy, thirty-nine pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government (Demenet, 2002).
HIV and AIDS is one of many diseases impacting on the lives of ordinary human beings living in Africa. The treatment for the disease is one of many which are not economically viable to give to the masses. The cure of sleeping sickness, caused by the tsetse fly, for example, was found to be so expensive for the patient that it became unusable and was no longer manufactured by the inventing pharmaceutical company. The patent was later transferred to the World Health Organisation but a manufacturer for the drug was difficult to find, given the difficulties in raising profits. Similarly, the cure for leishmaniosis, a common parasitic disease found in Africa, remained in the laboratory for years without going into a production because it was feared there was no guarantee of a return on the investment (Bulard,2000 ).
Over a decade later, the battle for generic drugs continues. In 2011, Mumbai patent office rejected the patent for Kaletra in India for the treatment of HIV and AIDS. Cheaper versions of the drug have now been manufactured and are ready for consumption in south-Saharan Africa. It is worth noting that five million people are alive in Africa only because they have access to these drugs and at least ten million more people need access (Boseley, 2011). Estimates of the cost to human life under the Nazis genocide vary from six to ten million people (Jones, 2006:147)
Were the profits from HIV and AIDS medications reinvested in new research and treatments, one might suggest that the action of pharmaceutical companies was somewhat understandable, if not justifiable. Reinvestment in research is particularly important because HIV gradually becomes resistant to medications (Bosely, 2011). The reality, however, is that eighty percent of biomedical research funding at Yale university is publically subsidised, deriving from the National Institute of Health (Demenet, 2002). The cost to human life without these medications is unimaginable but the cost of human life was quantified by the Clinton Health Access Initiative at four hundred and forty dollars per life, per year. With generic drugs to cost would be less than eighty dollars per life, per year (Boseley, 2011). The pharmaceutical companies and United States government, concerned for the economic stability of their country, are placing the bottom line of an accounts balance ahead of the lives of millions of people across the globe. The lives of those infect with HIV are seemingly superfluous (Arendt, 1973:459) to the economic requirements of these companies.
I just thought I would share a section of an essay I wrote in May. Genuinely, if you didn't hate the BPs before, you will after this! I appreciate that this is not specifically about nicotine but I'd like to show you the information I discovered. I am able to share this with you now because my final grade for my masters has been decided (distinction!).
To add some context to this essay, the title was 'What does it mean to speak of evil as 'banal'? How might the documenation of 'social suffering' expose the 'banality of evil' in our times?'
For those who haven't read the book, Hannah Arendt wrote a book about the Eichmann Trial and described his evil as 'banal' because he effectively signed the death warrants for millions of people during the genocide in Nazi occupied Europe. He was a pen-pusher, a bureaucrat. He ticked a box and went home to his family. This is not to say that the evils of his crime are no less horrendous, but that human beings are capable of such evil by ticking a box or signing a form. It's a hotly contested book and if you'd like to debate it's merits, let's do it elsewhere. I present this section of my essay for the statistics and the historical details within, not the philosophical debate.
Please, go ahead and read... I'd be interested to know your response.x
P.S. If this makes you angry, you should read the section on mobile phones!!!
In the mid 1980s, Western society became aware of a new, incurable disease. HIV and AIDS medications to slow the progression of the disease have been made available but these are costly. In 1999, Monbiot reported that twenty-two percent of pregnant women in South Africa were HIV positive and within ten years, the average life expectancy would drop from fifty-nine to forty years of age (Monbiot, 1999). The South African Government began taking steps to produce cheaper, generic versions of antiretroviral drugs to prevent the spread of the disease from mother to foetus and to lessen the chances of contracting the disease after rape. A new law passed allowed the Government to compulsorily purchase the rights to drugs or buy the drugs more cheaply from countries producing them. Some research into HIV and AIDS medication had been publically funded but the United States Congress overwhelmingly voted to prevent the South African Government from manufacturing the drugs which could have saved many thousands of lives. Had South Africa succeeded the pharmaceutical companies share values would have decreased and, as Monbiot scathingly wrote, nothing, even the lives of millions, can be permitted to threaten the value of their shares (Monbiot, 1999).
Stavudine was invented at Yale University in 1994. Between 1994 and 2002, the drug had earned the university two hundred and sixty one million dollars. In the United States, daily use of the drug would cost the patient $8.66 but in South Africa, the drug could be bought for the daily cost of $4.46, however, this was still far too expensive for widespread use. While one inventor of the drug, Dr William Prusoff, was happy for the drug to be widespread, saying people shouldnt die for economic reasons, because they cant afford the drug. If Aids was completely solved and no royalties came in, I would be very happy, thirty-nine pharmaceutical companies sued the South African government (Demenet, 2002).
HIV and AIDS is one of many diseases impacting on the lives of ordinary human beings living in Africa. The treatment for the disease is one of many which are not economically viable to give to the masses. The cure of sleeping sickness, caused by the tsetse fly, for example, was found to be so expensive for the patient that it became unusable and was no longer manufactured by the inventing pharmaceutical company. The patent was later transferred to the World Health Organisation but a manufacturer for the drug was difficult to find, given the difficulties in raising profits. Similarly, the cure for leishmaniosis, a common parasitic disease found in Africa, remained in the laboratory for years without going into a production because it was feared there was no guarantee of a return on the investment (Bulard,2000 ).
Over a decade later, the battle for generic drugs continues. In 2011, Mumbai patent office rejected the patent for Kaletra in India for the treatment of HIV and AIDS. Cheaper versions of the drug have now been manufactured and are ready for consumption in south-Saharan Africa. It is worth noting that five million people are alive in Africa only because they have access to these drugs and at least ten million more people need access (Boseley, 2011). Estimates of the cost to human life under the Nazis genocide vary from six to ten million people (Jones, 2006:147)
Were the profits from HIV and AIDS medications reinvested in new research and treatments, one might suggest that the action of pharmaceutical companies was somewhat understandable, if not justifiable. Reinvestment in research is particularly important because HIV gradually becomes resistant to medications (Bosely, 2011). The reality, however, is that eighty percent of biomedical research funding at Yale university is publically subsidised, deriving from the National Institute of Health (Demenet, 2002). The cost to human life without these medications is unimaginable but the cost of human life was quantified by the Clinton Health Access Initiative at four hundred and forty dollars per life, per year. With generic drugs to cost would be less than eighty dollars per life, per year (Boseley, 2011). The pharmaceutical companies and United States government, concerned for the economic stability of their country, are placing the bottom line of an accounts balance ahead of the lives of millions of people across the globe. The lives of those infect with HIV are seemingly superfluous (Arendt, 1973:459) to the economic requirements of these companies.
We the people of the US have known this for years, so who is doing anything about it? The government has taken over because WE don't stop it.....All theseacommittees are B.S. CASSA is the only ones fighting our battle, if we don't speak up the more we grow, we will never win the battle~
