stayalive: AIDS

Friday, November 18, 2005

well, first things first. this is more of an importance as i review what i initially wanted to write, just in case i end up typing one entree for the day. AIDS. how important is AIDS and how it affects us? what are the issues regarding AIDS? are we living in a world of AIDS-awareness or not? as i watched MTV Asia today, the Staying-Alive Program made me more self-conscious as a being on this earth and the issues happening in the world. if i had been sufficiently aware of this issue, or sufficiently equipped with knowledge of such knowledge, let's just say that today, the program heightened my awareness up another ten notches. it was really interesting; seeing an entire group of people, coming from nations all over the world, congregating in one studio, addressing the issue with many prominent characters and the people behind the scene.

debate has taught me well. i have learnt not to be one-sided in my judgement and i realized how...let's just say, naive, people can get. first up, it was the interaction with the head of a prominent pharmaceutical company as well as 2 research professors.

ARGUMENT: WHY ARE MEDICINES PRICED AT SUCH HIGH PRICES? PEOPLE ARE DYING OUT THERE AND THE POOR CAN NOT GAIN ACCESS TO SUCH MEDICATION. PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE OUT FOR PROFITS. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT PROVIDING HEALTH-CARE FOR PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT WEALTH GROUPS.

i have always thought that pharmaceutical companies were inhumane. they jack up the prices to such high prices that only those minority which can gain access to them only because they can afford it. but what about the poor? is it fair to let them die just because they do not have the money? or even as much as they try to keep the costs to the minimum, it is just simply to costly to be affordable to the majority. also, we have to realize that what is affordable to us might not be affordable to everyone else.

still, i have gained an insight to this issue today. PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE NOT GOVERNMENT COMPANIES. THEY ARE JUST LIKE ANY COMPANIES; PROFIT-DRIVEN. JUST BECAUSE THEY TOUCH ON HUMAN ISSUES SUCH AS LIFE-SAVING DRUGS, DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO BE CHARITY? THEN WHO IS GOING TO KEEP THEIR COMPANY AFLOAT?

the reason why pharmaceutical companies exists is because they produce drugs. on a mass-scale. but what goes into the production and distribution of such drugs? years or even months of research by the various researchers, professors and people of other profession. such intensive and intricate labour of research to finally produce the drug is costly. the amount of money the pharmaceutical companies have to pump into the research, the amount of money to pay for the wages of these people, where does it come from? the higher executives of these companies do not live on water and bread either. there is only one solution but to increase the prices of such drugs to supplement the wages of the people and to invest in the research of such life-saving drugs. otherwise, the medical technology will stagnate and how do humans benefit from it? in fact, it would not only NOT benefit many people but the entire human population.

this brings me back to the theory of COMMUNISM and CAPITALISM. why doesn't communism work out? the reason is simple and clear: people see no incentive to work harder. capitalism gives people the incentive to work because it allows the people to work for profit. Pharmaceutical Companies are no different either. just because they produce life-saving drugs, does that make them any different from any other companies? they are not charity. it is pointless to call them inhumane because at the end of the day, who does not work for profits? even as the millions of people are at work as i type this, people are working for profits. then, is it pausible to call the entire world inhumane? human nature is such. that's how profit, greed and incentives come about. JUST HOW MANY PEOPLE WORK FOR CHARITY? STILL, THEY STILL HAVE TO EAT, DON'T THEY? charity ultimately comes from profits. people have to have the PROFITS first, before they can actually donate or do charity. we work for a living. that's the fact of life. nothing is free in this world.

they kept emphasizing on the fact that people in third-world countries or countries where poverty is common, these people cannot gain access to these drugs due to the high prices. but ultimately, what is affordable to me might not be affordable to everyone else. there can never be pleasing everybody, especially in this case where everybody technically means the world. why they kept harping on the same thing over and over again is because they are affected. it would benefit them and also another bunch of people if the costs of the drugs were lowered. but then again, even if the prices were continually lowered, does it mean that EVERYONE can still afford it? there would always be those that still cannot afford it despite the lowered price. we also need to look at this issue from the Pharmaceutical Companies' point of view. we need to understand that they are profit-driven companies. they are not responsible for our healthcare but are only responsible for producing drugs for our healthcare. if their returns is not the equivalent of the capital, we might find ourselves in serious trouble as pharmaceutical companies would fold and then, who is going to create these drugs? who is going to fund the research and production of more life-saving drugs? people, it is PROFITS that fund these.

ultimately, we cannot appease everybody but come up with measures to IMPROVE THE SITUATION. they can cut deals with the governments of the respective countries to provide such drugs at lower costs. the governments are responsible for the welfare of their people, not the pharmaceutical companies. still, that does not mean that the governments have to provide free medication. look at it at a business point of view. the theory of supply and demand. pharmaceutical companies work on the basis of QUALITY not QUANTITY. but because the governments can ensure that there would be a huge demand, it would be more practical for them to MASS-PRODUCE so as to gain their profit from selling in such huge QUANTITIES and NOT QUALITY.

still, not every country is doing that; cutting deals with pharmaceutical companies, though it would benefit their people.

next up: the interaction with ex-US President Bill Clinton

dubbed as: the first US President to ever take AIDS seriously; raised AIDS-awareness

issue: Stigma and discrimination of AIDS and political aspects regarding AIDS

the problem raised by one of the ladies was that though he might be raising AIDS-awareness in a positive manner, why did he not remove laws that caused stigma and plausible discrimination such as forms which made you declare if you were HIV positive or not. an abated breath took place then. it was also the first criticism directed at such a prominent figure. it lead the ball rolling before everyone got the guts to openly criticise and ask a former president questions about AIDS based on the political perspective.

his given answer did not fail the expectations of what was given of him. as usual, his answer was comprised of diplomatic tact and sincerity if u asked me. he said that HIV positive people should not be ashamed of their situation so why would declaring yourself HIV positive become a stigma for discrimination? moreover, he explained the irony the people felt about raising funds for the different causes as compared to AIDS. funds expected to be raised for the September 11 were raised in the matter of 3 days whereas funds for AIDS, over the timeframe of years, funds raised were not up to the expectations. however, he explained that the Government could raise so much funds for the September 11 cause in the matter of such a short period of time as there were plans as to how to spend the money. but the matter of AIDS is so diversified and plans to use the sum of money were still not drawn up to account for the use of the money. hence, progress to raise the money is more difficult.

every government should be expected to aid in AIDS-prevention/cure etc. but there is a budget and a limit to what the governments can provide and give. moreover, the country's treasury is funded by the tax-payers. we must come up with something constructive so as to make full use of the tax-payers' money, otherwise it would cause a lot of problems in the country internally which would also be highly unneccessary.

he explained that; in everything, there has to be a PLAN. something as easy-peasy to draw up; STRATEGY & PLAN is crucial in every proposal and would facilitate the process, hence, speeding up the process in raising the funds needed. therefore, a sound HEALTH PLAN is crucial.

ok. this is long enough. ally wants to use the com. shall post up other stuffs some other time. i've written for more than 3 hrs++, coupled with a lot of television in between. haha..

♥ occasionally sane but mostly weird 3:14 pm.