Greed is a common concern—a risk, from one perspective, an indictment, from another—raised regarding medical care and the people who profit from providing certain aspects of it. Nurses don’t get rich. Doctors, in rich nations, often do. Public hospitals generally don’t; private, for-profit ones do, and manage their work to make sure they do.
There’s a much richer ethical tradition than can be recounted here that doctors should not be about profit. Indeed, key tenets underwriting the understanding of medicine as a learned profession are that the physician enters a covenantal, not transactional, relationship with the patient, and that the physician is duty-bound to efface his self-interest when the patient’s care so requires. One can argue about the precise boundaries of that, but the principles, even with today’s corporate medicine, still seem generally accepted. The ancient Christian church gave us the “holy unmercenaries,” saints (generally physicians) who lived in extreme poverty and did not accept payment.
But the most relevant collective culprit in out time seems to be the Western pharmaceutical industry, which is, to be sure, lucrative, providing high-tech medicines at often high prices. The principle that the inventor has a right to profit from his invention has led to the standard practice of issuing and protecting patents, which prevent cheap alternatives from becoming available for a number of years. The idea is that the inventor has those years to make a reasonable profit before the right to praceice the invention becomes more generally available—unless the inventor grants a license to the patent, which of course comes at a price.
The most common remedy for proposed is to limit the price that can be charged. This is an issue of policy and justice, but not so much one of ethics as of public policy. The old search for the “just price”—what should something cost—foundered, because the most workable answer turned out to be the market price, assuming that seller and buyer are on equal footing.
A related proposal is that drug companies ought to be non-profit. The challenges here are that the modern drug industry employs many people, most of whom cannot be considered under the same terms as physicians—they have not taken a covenantal oath to society. They’re doing jobs, making a living. Also, being not-for-profit doesn’t eliminate the need for large amounts of money to develop and make drugs. Countering this is the charge that the prices could or should be lower, that the real costs are not so high to justify pricing, and so on. These are complex matters that will not be solved on principle but will be the source of ongoing policy disputes that will take on the form of a negotiation, of sorts.
But if one grants that the drug maker is due a reasonable, or even a handsome, profit, then one can still ask, if the medical need is sufficiently acute, when does just, merciful care of suffering people–some rich, many not so much, some from rich countries, many not so much so—demand that the product not be considered a proprietary invention, but a public good?
This question is surfacing as the prospect of one or move COVID-19 vaccines becomes more likely. The general press has recently reported on various prospective pricing plans from the manufacturers. Some intend prices that are a bit higher than others, some are discussing charging poor countries less than rich countries, and so on.
A more provocative proposal is to eliminate the property protection from COVID drugs or vaccines. Recent arguments have held that in no circumstance should patents be enforced, so that inventions would be immediately open on a broad basis, and that one nation should not be able to prefer a product made by a native country be available first to its own citizens; or that, perhaps more simply, that all COVID-related inventions should be placed in an open-access repository for widespread availability. The fundamental argument is that all such inventions are, and should be, global public goods.
Counter arguments are that people who create new drugs, vaccines, or other products to meet critical needs should be reasonably rewarded, and that not allowing this creates a disincentive to them to make the attempt in the first place. A government that supports such work has a reason for claiming some consideration when it comes to pricing, and also arguably has a greater moral responsibility to its own citizens than to those of other nations. Part of that government support arguably includes a duty to provide incentive to the inventors and producers in the first place.
Expect to hear more about this in the general press in the months ahead.