Review of Anthem, by Ayn Rand

It’s no joke: drug-industry literally leaves millions to death








This statement may seem to be a little bit of an exaggeration, but it is not. Large players of the pharmaceutical world, supposed to be offering solutions of healing, are actually one of the culprits for the death of millions of people. In face of great advancements in technology and huge achievements in civilizational understanding, the world is silently witnessing a major case of indifference to the problems of HIV-infected people whose number well exceed millions, particularly in poor countries. Not only are they suffering from a deadly and dreadful disease, but these poor men and women are also forced to accept the sad reality that they have to wait for their death simply because they are unable to access to drugs which can actually alleviate or completely end their sufferings.

In fact, the problem and its solution is simple: global pharmaceutical companies produce AIDS drugs which are proven to be effective, but they price their products fairly unreasonably that most HIV-infected people in the underdeveloped world cannot afford to buy them. Worse, large drug companies that maintain monopoly over certain products, using their privileges legally protected by patenting and intellectual property tools, impose barriers to delivery and use of generic drugs which basically have similar effects in terms of treatment. In an unethical move, some of these companies even admit that they care about only a small fraction of the population in poor countries and pay no attention to the rest who have no adequate financial resources for medicine.

This state of indifference which obviously put millions of people at a risk of immediate death is in breach of social responsibilities of large corporations. Above all, by contemporary definition, a corporation is responsible for anything in a social environment that bears relevance to its activities. The primary focus of a corporation is no longer profit and is extended to cover social issues as well. This is in fact what the redefinition of capitalism now dictates because the moral legitimacy of the capitalist system is based on the premise that it generates wealth and prosperity. The contemporary approach suggests that this goal is achieved not only by generating more products at reasonable prices but also by being attentive to what is taking place in the social realm.

The case of AIDS drugs is a telling story that big pharmaceutical companies are unaware of or inattentive to the idea that a company is responsible of something that goes beyond making profit and revenues. The contemporary approach stresses that once it appears in the realm of business and trade, a corporation must be willing to honor these responsibilities. Just like a state cannot commit genocide or crimes against humanity because of its inherent responsibilities that exist by virtue of being defined as a state, a company may not ignore its corporate responsibilities. A traditional approach may suggest that a company is responsible to only its shareholders and that this responsibility is fulfilled by maximization of profit. However, the contemporary approach recalls that a company is responsible to any entity or any individual that may have a stake in the activities of a company and their possible outcomes and ramifications.

Pharmaceutical companies are not immune to this premise. Even though it is not always possible to clearly identify the stakeholders, obviously these companies have an ethical obligation vis-à-vis the HIV-infected people. Basically, these people cannot be denied having access to drugs that may make them feel better. This is a fundamental health right protected under mainstream international legal documents. Pharmaceutical companies cannot justify this breach arguing that they need to set such high prices for future research and development activities. Studies show that it is possible to maintain balance between profitability and fulfilment of corporate social responsibilities. In other words, pharmaceutical companies can reduce the prices of the AIDS drugs and can still make profit, thus honoring responsibilities vis-à-vis their shareholders as well as the sick people and the whole community. In fact, emerging approaches in the literature note that there is no hierarchical order between the diverse responsibilities of a company (economic, legal and ethical) and that a company must fulfil all these responsibilities at the same time.

It appears that pharmaceutical companies do not voluntarily observe these responsibilities and act in accordance with what they stipulate. But instead, it is the national governments (i.e. Canada which compensates part of the loss of profits for the large pharmaceutical companies holding patenting rights over certain drugs but allows use of generic drugs) and international organizations (prime example World Health Organization) that will force them to consider these responsibilities.