Quote:
|
No, they aren't. They are in the business of making money and providing a good return to their shareholders. Organizations like the Red Cross and Medecins Sans Frontieres are in the business of saving lives.
|
Now's where the differences in idealogies come into play. The way I see it, the companies provide that good return to their investors by saving lives. That's their primary focus. The Red Cross, as a non-profit, isn't in the
business of saving lives, so that they aren't tied into all of that mess.
It's like the music biz. They're in the business of making music, so they find the greatest short term return on their investment possible. Responsible music-making is forgotten. It's actually a disservice to their investors, because, while the short term return can be great, the long-term is for crap. On the same token, saving and improving the lives of potential consumers in Africa should be important, if only for their potentiality. (Is that a word?) And that would be fine if you're in the toaster business. But when you engage in a money-making venture that plays with people's lives and well-being, you have a certain responsibility to fill. It's appropriate to find the proper balance between making money and saving lives, but it's not appropriate to give up one for the other. That's why I don't necessarily think the pharm. industry should just begin to give everything away. But they also shouldn't hoard things to themself just to get the maximum possible return on their investment.
Now I don't know what distinctions you're talking about. But I hope
my distinction is clear.