The Privilege of Paltry Principles

“And it is not difficult for them to maintain their principles at the cost of the discomfort of others.” W.S. Maugham Cakes and Ale
Maugham was referring to the English and a lack of fire in the grate of a drawing room in summer; for the English were notorious for not lighting fires before October 1st even if the weather warranted it. This instance reminds me of the contemporary American conservative’s use of one principle against another as a means of assuring good returns on investments even if those investments stifle competition rather than encourage it. Conservatives call for smaller government and freer competition, but when it comes to competition, they won’t invest in a start-up unless it has not only identified a niche but secured it with an intellectual property patent.
The latest exposure of this inconsistency in principle (free market vs. secure investment) is the patenting of genes. It seems that biotech companies have been able to secure patents on parts of the human body even though nature is not supposed to be patentable. CBS’s 60 Minutes exposed this whole can of genes on their Easter Sunday show. The piece revealed that a biotech company called Myriad Genetics had patented the gene that indicates susceptibility to breast cancer in women. Therefore, the only place you can get tested for the gene is through Myriad. The cost of the procedure is $3200. While most insurance plans cover the cost, some do not cover the complete cost.
However, cost coverage aside, does any company have the right to isolate and patent a gene? Apparently, only in America has it been legal so far. Then again, that may change now that the courts have gotten involved, thanks to a case involving a New York woman whose insurance would not pay the full fee to Myriad.
I can see where an investor would want to secure an investment by investing in something protected. Surely a patent on some sort of cure would be reasonable. But to prevent any other research on a gene because of a patent seems, well, patently immoral. Under what circumstances should property rights and profit protection take precedence over saving a life? Doctors may take the Hippocratic Oath, but business treats even parts of human beings as property to buy and sell. It is slavery piecemeal.
To me this is a prime example of how the modern scions of capitalism defended by conservatives have run amok of principle. They may hold life as sacred at the point of conception, but if an adult is in need of a service she cannot afford because her gene is owned by a corporation, that’s too bad. What principle could possibly explain this ambivalence about human life?
Private property has always been the basis of capitalism. Making anything and everything, including genes, own-able takes us backwards as human beings, not forward. Making money for the few at the expense of the many never had a noble ring to it either. It’s trickle up, not trickle down.
As 60 Minutes pointed out, Jonas Salk, who invented the cure for polio did not patent the vaccine for his own profit. He was happy to have made a contribution to society by eliminating a dreaded disease. Today, one wonders what the pharmaceutical industry is up to when all we see advertised are maintenance drugs rather than cures. If they can get us to buy a drug that makes us feel better or improves our health without curing the problem, then we feel better and they continue to make money on the endless refills we purchase.
Where are medical heroes of today? Where are the actual cures? I suspect that the principle of profit takes precedence over the principle of medical solution, thanks to investment strategies and greed. It simply is not profitable to come up with cures for disease. It is highly profitable to come up with maintenance relief of symptoms.
This may all sound cynical, but it shows just how far we have strayed from doing what is right. Instead, we would rather do what is profitable. The market system does not serve us; we serve it. And until we regain control of it and put it to our own best use as a species, we will continue to see our body parts not auctioned off to the highest bidder but patented in isolation and for someone else’s profit.
Principles are meant to be questioned. If they do not stand up to the test of greater goodness, they should be discarded. Making money and hiding behind principles of free market or Caveat Emptor are as nonsensical as not lighting a fire in the drawing room because it is not after October 1st. Moreover, they are a whole lot more threatening to civilization as we know it.