Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 6 views

    Pro Drug-pro 赵晨宇

    Uploaded by

    aroay071221

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pro Drug-pro 赵晨宇

    Uploaded by

    aroay071221
    6 views3 pages

    Original Title

    Pro Drug-pro 赵晨宇(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    6 views3 pages

    Pro Drug-pro 赵晨宇

    Uploaded by

    aroay071221

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Standing for the pro, we firmly believe that it is reasonable to abolish drug patents.

    Definition
    According to Cambridge University Press, a drug is defined as “a substance that can be taken
    into the human body and, once taken, alters some processes within the body” and can be used in
    the “diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of a disease” . This highlights the potential for drugs to
    significantly improve health and well-being.
    Merriam-Webster defines a patent as a “document granting an inventor sole rights to an
    invention” for a limited period, often up to 20 years . This right can prevent others from making,
    using, or selling the invention without permission.
    Combining these definitions, we can frame the concept of a drug patent as:
    “A legal protection granted to pharmaceutical companies that allows them exclusive rights to
    manufacture and sell a drug for a certain period, ensuring they can recoup development costs
    and generate profits.”

    Framework
    On pro, we believe the judge should evaluate the debate round with the assumption that the
    policy should take into full consideration of current situations and more social well-being to the
    majority of the public. The team that wins this debate should be the one that considers all sides
    and balances the benefits of all stakeholders properly.

    Contention 1: Accessibility
    Drug patents create significant barriers to access to essential medications, particularly in low-
    income regions. The high costs of patented drugs often make them unaffordable for many
    individuals and healthcare systems, leading to preventable suffering and death. A report by the
    World Health Organization (WHO) highlights that approximately 2 billion people lack access to
    essential medicines due to high prices and patent protections. When patents are abolished,
    generic manufacturers can produce and sell medications at a fraction of the cost, dramatically
    increasing accessibility and affordability. In India, for example, the production of generic anti-
    retro-viral drugs led to a significant decrease in the cost of HIV treatment, making it accessible to
    millions more people. Therefore, abolishing drug patents would enhance global health equity by
    ensuring that life-saving medications are available to all who need them, regardless of their
    economic status.

    Contention 2: Cost Reduction


    The cost of healthcare can be drastically reduced by abolishing drug patents. Patented drugs are
    often sold at exorbitant prices to maximize profits, which places a financial burden on both
    patients and healthcare systems. Data from the Journal of the American Medical Association
    (JAMA) indicates that the cost of patented drugs is, on average, 4.5 times higher than that of
    generic versions. For instance, the introduction of generic drugs has led to significant cost savings
    for the U.S. healthcare system—an estimated $1.67 trillion over the past decade. By abolishing
    drug patents, we can facilitate the production of affordable generics, thus reducing overall
    healthcare costs and enabling more sustainable healthcare systems. This would allow funds to be
    allocated to other critical areas such as research and development for new treatments, improving
    the overall quality of care.

    Contention 3: Ethical Considerations


    The current patent system prioritizes profit over human life, raising serious ethical concerns. The
    fundamental goal of healthcare should be to save lives and improve the quality of life, not to
    generate maximum profit. When pharmaceutical companies are granted monopolies through
    patents, they can set exorbitant prices that many cannot afford, effectively placing profits above
    patient welfare. The case of insulin in the United States is a prime example: despite being
    discovered nearly a century ago, the price of insulin has skyrocketed due to patent manipulation,
    making it unaffordable for many diabetics. Abolishing drug patents would realign the focus of the
    pharmaceutical industry towards its ethical responsibility to prioritize patient health and well-
    being over financial gain. 1. Eli Lilly and Company: 2. Novo Nordisk 3. Sanofi These companies
    control the majority (90%) of the insulin supply in the U.S. market and have a significant influence
    on the pricing and availability of insulin products.

    In conclusion, abolishing drug patents would significantly improve access to essential


    medications, reduce healthcare costs, and address ethical concerns associated with prioritizing
    profits over patients. This shift would ultimately lead to a more equitable and effective healthcare
    system, benefiting society as a whole.

    This pro argument focuses on the ethical, financial, and accessibility benefits of abolishing drug
    patents, providing a balanced perspective that aims to address the needs of all stakeholders.
    The benefits of abolishing drug patent are far from being fully listed in my short speech, and
    putting an end to drug patent deserve further attention and appeal.

    瞎子注意 这是 CON 的观点 但是这个文件是 PRO 的文件！Contention4:Drug Safety


    For the drug safety, the potential addiction of generic drugs and branded drugs does not have a
    significant difference because the potential addiction only due to the active ingredients. (For
    example the active ingredients of opioid are almost the same. So the potential addiction of GD
    and BD are quite similar .) And there is a data for the example: According to the CDC, in 2020,
    nearly 69,000 people died from opioid overdoses in the United States. Both generic and
    branded opioids contribute to these figures.
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20210714.htmIf the
    government wants to cut down the phenomenon of overdose and addiction, that means the
    government should not abolish the drug patents. Because the drug patents can control addiction
    and overdose by decreasing the access to generating generic drugs . Another example of the
    drug safety is The 2020 NSDUH report indicated that 16.1 million people aged 12 or older
    misused prescription psychotherapeutic drugs in the past
    year.https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2021/20210714.htmSo how
    can this circumstance happened so severely? If we don’t abolish the drug patents this
    circumstance will be alleviated because when drug patents are applied successfully at once, the
    awareness of paying attention to the prescription drug will arise immediately and the drug
    oxycontin is the most typical example for it.According to the FDA, since the reformulation of
    OxyContin in 2010, abuse incidents have decreased by approximately 20% to 30%.
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25760692/ But if we do not abolish the drug patents, the
    number of abusing drugs will decrease and the people dead from abusing will decrease as well.

    You might also like