An interesting debate

[couchscout]

I was at a social gathering a few nights ago, and I overheard a group of 20somethings having a rather heated debate, I found myself just sitting there listening to this group argue and debate instead of being social and mingling. I though it would be a great topic of discussion here.

I'm praying and lobbying for you guys to not make this religious or political.

Disclaimer: The science of this scenario is completely foreign to me, I have no clue if any of this is even plausible, it's a hypothetical. Let's just debate the topic as if it is possible.

The setup: You go to the doctor for something routine/mundane, and your blood is taken and analyzed. You get a call a few days later about the blood test, and it's been determined that somehow your body is killing cancer. The news of this has already spread throughout the medical world, and some big company wants to submit you to a bunch of testing to try and come up with a permanent cure for cancer.

You would basically need to be at their beck and call at all times, sometimes staying in the lab overnight or for days at a time. Also, you would obviously be getting poked and prodded and have many different invasive tests run on you.

So the question is, would you charge for that? And if you did decide to make the company pay, would you ask for a crazy amount, or just enough to keep your family comfortable since you obviously wouldn't be able to work? And remember, if they succeed, cancer would be cured and you would have played a major role in that.

The arguments both ways were pretty interesting, I was leaning pretty heavily one way until someone brought up one solid argument, now I'm solidly on the other side. I'll let you guys discuss for a bit, and if any of the major arguments aren't mentioned, I'll chime in.

 

[Rackat]

Because I do not have enough blood for every person with cancer to benifit, the lab/drug company would have to synthesize the properties in my blood to give to cancer patients. I would probably mandate the following for the use of my blood:
1. I make a percentage of the profits from the marketing/sales of the synthesized blood, say 5%;
or
2. Have a contract written that precludes the use of my blood products from making a profit for the companies, ie; free to cancer patients.

 

[Hoofbite]

Because I do not have enough blood for every person with cancer to benifit, the lab/drug company would have to synthesize the properties in my blood to give to cancer patients. I would probably mandate the following for the use of my blood:
1. I make a percentage of the profits from the marketing/sales of the synthesized blood, say 5%;
or
2. Have a contract written that precludes the use of my blood products from making a profit for the companies, ie; free to cancer patients.

I was thinking something similar but there are costs that would absolutely have to be accounted for.

It's an interesting topic. I'm not sure what being their lab rat would entail but I can't imagine anyone would sign on to have anything put into their bodies so that kind of just leaves taking blood out.

 

[the kid 05]

I'd ask to be paid for my time and that its free to current and future cancer patients. Nothing would be worth more to me then to know that the disease is defeated after taking many lives.

 

[basstapp]

give me a cool million dollars and we will call it even. With all the research money that goes into cancer that money would be readily available.

I would put a cap on how much the drug companies would charge.

 

[Phoenix]

If it were found that something in my body were killing cancer, that would seem to indicate that cancer is already within me but my body is "killing" it. I would have a vested interest in becoming their lab rat not only to possibly help others, but to try to ensure that my body kept killing cancer within me!

So I would probably ask for something and become their permanent lab rat. I'd probably throw out whatever the most recent NFL highest guaranteed money was from a contract

 

[YosemiteSam]

I wouldn't do it for free as I would need to provide for my family too. (you said be there at their beck and call) That said, I would also have stipulations of the technology that became of this. I would require many companies and Universities to work on this technology and split the cost of developing it. They would also all compete when it comes time for distribution. No single company selling the drug or whatever and charging ignorant amounts of money for it.

I would also require that they buy me a house somewhere on a large piece of land where there is no light pollution somewhere in Arizona and build an observatory with two large telescopes (a refractor and an SGT) and high end imaging equipment.

 

[a_minimalist]

Pay me $15 billion dollars. I'm not risking the stress of having to deal with those people and the possibility of my body giving up and stop fighting. I like life too much. I can't imagine the tests and questions that need to be done being enjoyable. Under the given circumstances it's a miracle. I'm not willing to gamble and risk the good luck I was given.

The cure can never be more than $1,000 per person.

After that, let's go to work.

 

[joseephuss]

This discussion(rather than debate) is interesting. Are there companies out there that would be willing to meet some of the demands I have seen listed? I have my doubts. Is there any compromise available? Instead of the cure being free, can they charge for it? A $1000 dollar cure is better than no cure at all. Can you draw a line on something like that? A cure can't be developed at all unless you allow yourself and your blood to be tested. If your demands can't be met, do you just walk away from it all? That is a tough one.

 

[a_minimalist]

This discussion(rather than debate) is interesting. Are there companies out there that would be willing to meet some of the demands I have seen listed? I have my doubts. Is there any compromise available? Instead of the cure being free, can they charge for it? A $1000 dollar cure is better than no cure at all. Can you draw a line on something like that? A cure can't be developed at all unless you allow yourself and your blood to be tested. If your demands can't be met, do you just walk away from it all? That is a tough one.

I'd have no problem walking away if it meant less stress and allowing my body to do what it's doing. Introducing multiple new variables only puts risks on the person who is undergoing the testing.

 

[Doc50]

All research subjects are paid, commensurate with the time and perceived risk.

This scenario will not likely happen, since the hypothetical "killing" aspect of the patient's system would prevent cancer from occuring, so it would not be discovered.

 

[JBond]

2. Have a contract written that precludes the use of my blood products from making a profit for the companies, ie; free to cancer patients.

This makes absolutely no sense. Um... never mind. Just please pick up an econ book in your free time.

 

[Idgit]

First, cool topic.

Let's put it this way: if my genetics made it possible for me to cure a devastating disease because of my brain and not because of my blood, I'd expect to be compensated for that. I'd expect the same if it were my blood that was the genetic gift to the world. I think it would be crazy to give away a value of that magnitude.

And, put another way, if you really wanted to make the world a better place, you're in a lot better position to do that after you've received the monetary benefit your gift of genetics should deliver. That economic benefit would otherwise go to a corporation and would be a lot less likely to do direct material good.

That said, if I were in such a catbird seat, I'd control every aspect of how the blood was used, and by whom to make sure the benefit was handles in a way I could be ethically proud of. If I'm walking around with a bottled cure for cancer, that wouldn't be too difficult.

 

[Rackat]

This makes absolutely no sense. Um... never mind. Just please pick up an econ book in your free time.

Please, are you the President of the Smarmy Club of the Zone? :laugh2:

Making a profit off of my blood products is not up to me? It's a hypothetical question, and a hypothetical answer, for a hypothetical debate. Take your hypothetical economic intelligence and condescension elsewhere.

 

[jobberone]

Sure I'd charge them and a royalty. They would likely be interested in my progeny to see is they are part of this amazing cure. I'd advise them to charge for it as well. I'd set my progeny and theirs up for life. I would set up a managing private corporation to oversee the entire operation including working with all those involved. There is no way to produce a cure without significant costs and that's best solved by the private sector and includes a reasonable profit. I would want enough profit to go towards a means for the disadvantaged to be helped in a reasonable way so all could be included in the benefits as needed.

I'd also take some of that money for a trust to benefit mankind in other ways to give back some of my bounty to all. Right now a vaccine for malaria would probably benefit mankind the most so I'd probably set that up and require the major players to cooperate for costs and a meager return as well as a sliding scale for costs of dissemination of the finished product to countries that could not afford it. I would insist on oversight to insure no one profits too much.

This is a very interesting thread.

 

[TheDude]

Question...

Cancer is cured for the subject not eradicated from society? Meaning people could still contract the disease in the future?

Regardless, I will ask for a very handsome sum. If I dont, the companies will. If it is eradicated, I get an upfront sum nearing $1B, if cured it goes to $50-100M upfront and a licensing fee for prescription.

I think it is nice to say I could require that the pharma companies and universities not profit, but money is a primary motivator. Cost to manufacture can be bloated, expenses padded, etc.

There will be a "market" and if insurance companies get involved, it will add some marginal costs, but be spread to others via the law of large numbers, making it more affordable to more.

This cure is a resource and those are valued by scarcity. If I am the only one in the world to have it then I think $1B-$2B is not an unfair sum. That equates to $0.17-$0.33 per person in the world.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I suspect that once the news got out that there was a person who had a genetic makeup that could cure cancer, your life and your ability to make such decisions would effectively be over.

Since the discovery would have already occurred, the news will have traveled quickly and any chance of containing it will be none existent. I don't really think that an individual who might be able to provide the cure for cancer would have very much ability to say or do anything. I think that the government would probably move to "protect" that person and that person would essentially turn into a "Government Asset", for lack of a better description.

 

[Signals]

Based on the information given in the OP, I would undoubtedly, unequivocally, unwaveringly require insane amounts of money and power to be sole solution to such a big problem in the world. There would be no one who would EVER change my mind about this.

It's about time the world had a good man with insane amounts of money and power.

 

[MyBad]

I'm praying.

LOL religious statement

 

[arglebargle]

I'd be talking to a lawyer instanter, to make sure of the legal terrain. I'd want some basic 'lab rat' pay, but would try to make sure the cure was easily available.

You would be getting your 15 minutes of fame from this anyway, which, if managed correctly, could make you pretty comfortable afterwards. The doctors and scientists involved would be on the fast track for a Nobel Prize, so they have plenty of incentive, even if you open source your special genetic components.