CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should AIDS drugs be made cheaper for developing countries?
The majority of the world's HIV/AIDS cases are in Africa.
Should the issue of affordability of AIDS drugs go forward?
Some African nations ignore intellectual property rights and produce cheap drugs unless companies argee to lower the price of thier product in order to accommodate the poor markets.
Do drug companies have the right to make immense profit despite the pain and suffering of others whether poor nations can afford to pay the costs?
Well, yes. But we need to work to reduce new HIV infections by enabling women to protect themselves and others.
AIDs drugs are not the answer. They only treat the symptoms of a more widespread disease: the inequality of women.
Consider this:
"Generally women are at a greater risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV. Biologically women are twice more likely to become infected with HIV through unprotected heterosexual intercourse than men. In many countries women are less likely to be able to negotiate condom use and are more likely to be subjected to non-consensual sex." [1]
Some examples of the problem.
"A South African study concluded that women who were beaten or dominated by their partners were much more likely to become infected with HIV than women who were not.29 Another study of 20,425 couples in India found not only that HIV transmission was much greater in abusive relationships, but also that abusive husbands were more likely to be infected with HIV than non-abusive husbands."
"A study of 400 women attending an STI clinic in Pune, India showed that:
25 percent were infected with STIs
14 percent were HIV positive
93 percent of these women were married
91 percent had not had sex with anyone other than their husbands"
Two big challenges:
We need to help
1. Kill the myth that raping a virgin will cure men of AIDs.
I agree with your answer. Instead of just giving people drugs for it, we should teach the people in developing countries of ways to prevent it. That would help save money because we wouldn't have to buy the drugs.
It is unequivocally true that education is an prerequisite for preventing AIDS/HIV and other STDs, but the question really addresses what about those who already have AIDS/HIV in African countries. Lack of education is a major problem, which is the cause for many cases, but this doesn't mean we totally ignore those with these diseases.
Prevention is important, but as humans and the richest nation, needs must be met and compassion bestowed upon these individuals; therefore, it is our duty to provide assistance by drugs and education. For those with AIDS/HIV, drugs still need to be administrated. Of all the countries in the world, HIV/AIDS living population are ranked by the percentage of the nation's population where the first 19 countries are in the African Continent. [1]
"but as humans and the richest nation, needs must be met and compassion bestowed upon these individuals; therefore, it is our duty to provide assistance by drugs and education."
Is it only America's duty to help the people? Although we would be helping the people in Africa, what would it look like for us to help other people completely across the ocean before we help our own people sitting right in front of us. I think that if we lower it for them then we should lower it for everybody.
This debate is pretty much emotion v. logic. You and I are against making the drugs cheaper - so I'd call us logical. Everybody who says 'Yes' is emotional.
I've a solution for both sides of this debate. Offer the drugs for the normal price and allow it to be paid in low installments over time, void of interest.
You didn't even give a proper answer to the question. The debate is not about the prevalence of AIDS and how that could be stopped, but rather if the drugs used for AIDS should be cheaper. In your opinion, should they?
I did read those first two words - but I thought that the remainder would have been put to better use had you given your reasons - not rambling on about AIDS awareness.
All that I said was that this debate is not the place to get into such an argument. It is about the price of the drugs - not what can be done to keep people from needing them.
If I were the fat bastard (I am neither) I'd love the helicopter. However - could you imagine many of those fat bastards giving up their helicopter in favour of doing a good deed? And if so, why do a good deed for people 5,000 miles away when they would do a good deed for people 25 miles away?
Being as I have this insane notion that humanity presides over profit, I'd argue it to be free. However, I will stick with simply cheaper. It's just the right thing to do.
Africa is literally incomparable to any other nation when it comes to the AIDS/HIV epidemic. America has an infection rate that is miniscule compared to africa, which has an infection rate of 15-20% among males between 15 and 65 (65 might be wrong, I'll have to check again). America has about a .3% infection rate. It is crucial to fix the largest root of the issue if we ever plan to be free of the epidemic.
Some countries average income per capita is less than a dollar a day. I think the price should be as low as possible not only for them, but for the whole world. We don't care about pharmaceutical companies flourishing on the expense of our health, they will still do make a lot of money if they sell their products half price here in America.
For the majority of issues concerning economics, I tend to side with economic liberalism, but developing countries need the correct AIDS drugs, and if companies can provide at a lower cost than we pay, that is fine. They are suffering; sure, the whole world is suffering economically, but they are suffering because of the debilitating effects of AIDS. It restrains these countries from growing economically and socially.
some might say the drugs have side effects but cmon,, what if you are dying suffering from AIDS??
in 1997, in japan, they started to give high effective AIDS drugs for FREE,, researchers then found out that the rate of infection has gone down to the half exactly.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
If you were trying to disagree with my statement on quality, then read on:
-
There is a fundamental flaw in capitalism. That flaw comes from its idyllic execution. Competing companies, in theory, will create superior products, as to gain profit. This is good. Prices drop, quality increases. However, no company will ever make a perfect product; there is no attainable top quality. This is because a perfect product would not consume, such as a car that never breaks or a computer with indefinite memory. Once everyone has a perfect product, no more sales can be made and a buisness then topples over.
-
This also works with near perfect products. If a product lasts an incredibly long time, a company will have a widely dispersed money flow. Such is hell for a company.
-
Companies fix this problem by making products weak and deficient, such as phones that break in a year, bikes with rustable alloy and so on. That way the cycle of consumerism continues.
This of course has nothing to do with cheap (inferior) drugs because when the drugs are consumed you will need another dose tomorrow. perhaps you should post this in another debate it may be relevant some other place.
First off I was making fun of the language in the tag line it should have read "should AIDS drugs be made less expensive for developing countries"
Second; if they are less expensive for developing country's they are not going to spend the money any way, we would and other country's who care. Most developing countries would rather not deal with the problem.
Is this the total US Government expenditure on HIV/AIDS?
The sum of $48 billion is the proposed expenditure of the US Government for combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis outside of the US over a five-year period. The bulk of this money, $39 billion, is for HIV/AIDS, with $4 billion going towards tuberculosis, and $5 billion for tackling malaria. The act also doubled the US contribution to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to $2 billion yearly. This is in addition to domestic HIV/AIDS expenditure for which $18.2 billion was requested for FY 2009.5
The American government donates a substantial amount of money for the AIDS epidemic. In 2008 the United States was the largest donor in the world, accounting for more than half of disbursements by governments.5 This was followed by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.
I may surprise you, but i believe I've found a resolve both you and I can agree on. Offer the drugs at regular price but in small installments over time, void of interest.
Just because the people have lower incomes doesn't mean that we should lower it just for them. What about the people in developed countries that don't make a lot of money? Do we just leave them to suffer too?
And just who would pay to make it cheaper? The drug companies won't lower their prices; it is out of American jurisdiction [is it not?]; and I for one wouldn't give a dime to help some bastard 5,000 miles away who'll probably die sooner then later anyway.
Although I agree that we shouldn't lower the cost of the drugs in developing countries, Governments can, in fact, impose a Price ceiling on an entire industry. The United States did so in the 1970's to control the price of gasoline.
Hell no, those people reproduce really fast. We need some checks and balances on their population growth. As matter of fact, they should make it more expensive in first world countries. I'm for anything that reduces rush hour traffic here and abroad ;)
