Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the avoid-long-scaly-things dept.

Doctors are concerned that stocks of anti-venom are running low around the world.

Dr. Richard Clark from UC San Diego Health is an expert in treating snake bite victims. He said, "I think the big deal about antivenoms and shortages in the world right now is that drug companies that make any kind of pharmaceutical product, only make it if it's profitable. And the problem with antivenoms is they tend to be fairly expensive to produce."

It's expensive to produce and there is not enough demand -- so little in fact, that the pharmaceutical company that produced antivenom products stopped making them in 2003. The Food and Drug Administration stepped in and extended the expiration dates of the last remaining supplies to last until June 2016. Clark says it will likely last even longer.

"So, there's still expired antivenom around that we know still works. One day that will be gone unless a company starts to make the coral snake antivenom again," said Clark.

In a case of a lifesaving drug, is it unreasonable to expect a pharmaceutical company to continue making it even though they would make higher profits elsewhere? Is this a good place for governmental incentives?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by black6host on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:49PM

    by black6host (3827) on Thursday November 24 2016, @07:49PM (#432538) Journal

    My opinion is it's unreasonable to expect a pharmaceutical to do anything that is not profit oriented. Expectation being defined as thinking it will happen. Should they? Hell yes. It should just be part of deal. Government incentives? We're still paying for as taxpayers. Net profits should not be gross. Grossly exorbitant that is.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by quintessence on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:45PM

    by quintessence (6227) on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:45PM (#432579)

    You can make the argument from a public health stance of keeping supplies of certain drugs available. And if no private company is willing, let a government fill in the gaps (I hear Cuba has a pretty large portfolio of biomedicine, and might be willing to take up the cause... for a price).

    And within hours you will hear pharmaceutical companies pitch a fit over the unfair competition.

    Can't have it both ways.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @09:48PM (#432612)

    This sounds like a job for a non-profit organization. You know, like the philanthropic ones that once built libraries across the country so that ordinary citizens would have free access to books. Some things are good for society but inherently unprofitable. Anti-venom production sounds like one of those things, and it's not an endless money-hole research problem but a known and stable production job. Someone feeling philanthropic could make a lasting name for himself by setting up the Gates or Cook or Koch Antivenom Institute dedicated to providing free antivenom to Americans.