Pope damns medical patents
The Pope's latest encyclical (a kind of churchy APA) decries "excessive zeal for ... intellectual property, especially in the field of health care."
Section 22 of the letter, entitled "Human Development in Our Time," laid out the Pope's vision of human development goals. It also highlighted the failings of the current system, citing rigid ideology, consumerist "superdevelopment", corruption, and "cultural models and social norms of behavior .... which hinder the process of development." Casting a strikingly pragmatic tone, the encyclical underscores the complexity of development issues, which "should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which oversimplify reality in artifical ways, and ... lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems."Pope Benedict XVI encyclical letter denounces excessive zeal for assertions of intellectual property rights in knowledge
the latest
latest episodes
Just (for now) going by the headline, I say kudos pope.
Yeah, getting in before all the Republican astro-turf guys get here:
Can you imagine how many poor people would have died if Banting and Best had patented insulin, rather than, essentially, CC-ing it?
I first read the title as: "Pope damns mental patients."
I guess I need to take my meds.
-- MrJM
I'm with you, PaulR.
Jesus was a socialist.
Christians = Communism + God
Acts 2:44-45 (New International Version)
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
God or no God, a Dark Age is inevitable under this sytem.
should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which oversimplify reality in [sic] artifical ways, and ... lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems.
So he's closing the place?
Wow. I did almost the exact same thing as MrJM - I thought it said the pope damned medical patients. I was so surprised, I read the pope's words from the links, and I thought - wow, that sounds really reasonable. I totally agree with the pope.
anyway, yeah, makes more sense once I realized the title referred to patents & not patients.
As an agnostic, it always seems to me that the opinions of the Catholic Church's leadership are either extremely forward-thinking or horribly wrong. This, fortunately, is the former.
It's awfully hard to justify ownership of ideas once you realize that everybody has them.
I like the attitude of a certain inventor who doesn't bother to patent his inventions. He says he makes more money selling books on how to duplicate his stuff than he ever could on selling the stuff itself.
As an atheist, I'm pleasantly surprised at this pope's forward thinking and grasp of these issues.
However, considering the source, I can't help but point the irony of the statement...
...which "should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which oversimplify reality in artifical ways,
He is bang on, but it could easily be said that the religions of man are an artificial oversimplification of reality; a particular view of the universe neatly packaged up for mass consumption, complete with behavioral incentives.
History has shown us religions can be as damaging to the greater social good as any false ideology mentioned, especially when the power and influence they can concentrate is manipulated to serve the agendas of a few.
Ironies aside,here's hoping this Pope is not one of the aforementioned. It does look like he is off to a positive start.
I don't often agree with the pope, but I'm with him on this one.
Just here to add to the echo chamber. ;)
My perspective is not a Catholic one, but as others have said, I'm impressed with Pope Benedict's forward thinking on some issues, including this.
Those scientists who discover new curative medicines and methods should receive the acclaim they are due, and should receive some kind of compensation for their contributions to us all. But to then bind those medical discoveries in legal webs so that only a powerful handful may control them? That truly is evil, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Pope in his denouncement of such practices.
@foobar - the Popemobile won't be on e-Bay for quite awhile, I'm afraid...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Ideology
...ain't the same thing as...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Dogma
Just in case there are others looking for this document it is known as, CARITAS IN VERITATE,in Church circles anyway.
Or properly titled...
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
CARITAS IN VERITATE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
THE LAY FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH
you can find the PDF @
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/pdfs/caritas.pdf
no. The rest of the baggage and the real church agenda cancels out any apparent good done. Thanks but no thanks, just sell some of those properties and art treasures and give the money to the children molested and then we'll talk.
I believe that some of the themes in the encyclical smack of Chesterton. I have not yet read the full text. As a spiritual person myself I have been an apologist for the Catholic church for some time. Good to see God getting a little better PR for a change.
Hey, pretty commendible. Now if only they can get over the "birth control" thing (the consequences of preaching against has killed millions in Africa), they'll be more agreeable yet.
So I guess he's now in favor of stem cell research?
No, he's sticking with one of those rigid ideologies that hinder the process of development.
So it seems the pope would vote for the pirate party in the next elections? Nice move, papa.
Who's the Pope?
So how are we to fund medical research then?
I'm not saying the current system is without its faults but currently 2% (ish) of lab based research ends up bringing a product to market, which is then only under patent for 5 years or so (the patent being applied for at the start of this process).
The costs of pharmaceutical research are gigantic. Yes more cheap drugs is great, but lets have a really good idea what the new system will look like before we tear down the old one.
This is a great example of moral consistency, in light of a particular interpretation of reality. I support this interpretation of an enlightened perspective of the moral aspects of Christianity.
I hope to see more enlightened perspectives from the Catholic Church (and all branches of Christianity for that matter) that are consistent with the tenet, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Kudos, mister Pope.
Then let the Catholic Church invest as much money in medicine as it wishes and it can give away its discoveries for free.
Being that the church has such a great relationship with the scientific community this would be an interesting experiment.
I love it when people who create nothing and promote ideas through their mystical ideals want to give away other peoples wealth.
The Catholic Church is one of the largest land owners on the planet. Would they like to do away with deeds to land?
He can take his idea and go pound sound.
"So how are we to fund medical research then?"
The way it's done now, through publicly subsidized hospitals and universities.
I agree with PJDK. Compare 5 years (or max 15 with renewal) to the 95 of the copyright law in the US and all of a sudden it does not looks that bad.
Given that, this does not mean that we cannot push for "free" research in universities which should be patent free, or that we cannot fight against stupid patents such as the ones on DNA sequences.
The most patently naive proposal regarding developing medicines that I have ever seen. The church had their go at governing society and the rate of progress under their leadership would not fill one shelf in a library.
The average drug requires nearly 1 Billion in development costs to even get to market. Nobody in government is equipped to measure the risk of which drugs to fund and which to pass on.
Perhaps we should begin taxing the church properties like any business. Furthermore let's tax their revenue like any business. Then maybe some of those funds can go to his noble ideal.
@takuan - i couldn't agree more. . .
I am happy to hear this, of course, but at the same time the whole condoms and AIDS thing keeps coming back. Isn't this the pope who said that condoms were CONTRIBUTING to the spread of AIDS? Yes, it is.
All religions are wrong. All superstitions that offer actual life guidance based on fairytales and makebelieve will always end up doing more harm than good. So the ideologist in me would like to see all of those things simply come to an end and humanity embracing rationality. That's not going to happen. So the pragmatist in me, who on any given day is louder anyway, thinks that tiny baby-steps in the right direction should be encouraged.
A question I've often discussed with friends when this topic arises is exactly *why* the church won't budge on the whole condoms issue. Scripture is quickly shot down--I understand the passage that this ban is based on is some guy pulling out and jizzing into the sand. God didn't like that, but for all we know God just doesn't like sperm-mud. Can't blame him.
The next line of thought that usually comes up is the "make sure more faithful Christians are created" thought. And I must say, when I start a game in Tropico on an island with very few inhabitants, the Ban on Birth Control is usually the first edict I issue, since it does increase births by about a third. I'm not convinced that this is a very good model of real life, though. Even if we do say that by banning birth control you cause our faithful to pop out more future faithful, I'm not sure this solves any problems the church has. As you know, the church has been hemorrhaging subscribers for a while now, especially in the developed world. That's also the place where people are least likely to listen to the church when it comes to birth control. The poorer places, where this scheme might work, well, that's where the church has plenty of people. I guess it could also be argued that in places like Africa the wholesale ban of condoms has, over time, caused a gross DECREASE in population rather than an increase.
Finally it tends to come down to politics. Dogma is its own raison d'être. Dogma may be supported not because of the effects that this dogma has or because of the superficial religious reasons behind it, but much rather because dogma can be a marker of loyalty. Saying "I subscribe to all this oldschool catholicism bullshit!" (in gentler words) may be understood as "I am an oldschool catholic, and not a threat to anyone in any way." The church is the most dogmatic organization I can think of; a dissenter would surely be cut down. So the Pope, either out of genuine humanitarianism or out of a desire to be remembered as a "good pope", attacks things that are comfortably outside of church dogma. Jesus never said "and yay thou shalt patent thy vaccinations". Charity to your fellow man is kind of the theme of the New Testament, so this is a pretty safe thing to ask for. And as much as it saddens me to say so, I think this is by far the most logical explanation of why the pope seems to forward thinking on some issues and not at all on others. This means that church teaching on certain subjects is likely to never change.
So let's just hope the church will become an obsolete, quaint relic soon enough.
@ Takun #16
If you're still interested it looks like Sean O'Malley is available to talk:
Via NYT.
The Pope, as always, has this tiny problem of thinking that all, or even a supermajority, of people will act altruistically for the greater good.
Say what you will about Capitalism, it's an efficient system for making sure that populations with large percentages of self-serving cutthroats don't turn into Somalia lookalikes.
Can you imagine if Jesus was like "hey dude if you want me to heal you it'll cost ya." I think there is actually a passage in the bible whereby the king of Armenia agreed that his people would convert to Christianity in exchange for some sort of healing.
Maybe instead of demanding money to be cured, under the pope's system hospitals will demand obedience to God.
Kidding!
I think the pope is secretly telling us that he's an athiest.
"should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies, which oversimplify reality in [sic] artifical ways, and ... lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems."
Catholicism used to be one of the largest and most rigid ideologies on the planet. This is the most humanist statement I have ever heard uttered from a religious authority.
That's it, I'm turning crypto-atheist A.K.A. Catholic.
On the actual issue? I think a 5 year drug patent is acceptable. I think that a greater good would be done just by giving people in Africa free condoms. Drugs are expensive either way.
@27
If abstinence does not work then why do the fundamentalist Muslim countries have the lowest rates of HIV infection in the world?
Let me see if I understand the plan. No one listens to the Pope now when he's promoting abstinence so he'll start promoting condoms and then they'll start listening. Very logical.
@ben665 #32:
Let me see if I understand the plan. No one listens to the Pope now when he's promoting abstinence so he'll start promoting condoms and then they'll start listening. Very logical.
The Pope is saying two things:
1) Don't have sex until you're married, and
2) When you do have sex, don't use birth control.
I'm fine with him telling people to wait for marriage (even if that tactic rarely works). But all too many Catholics choose to hear only the "condoms = sin" part of the message, which is why he would do well to drop it.
Agree or disagree with the Catholic Church's views on birth control, they are at least logically consistent and spring from a morally sound place rather than a morally questionable motive like producing more Catholics. Check out John Paul II's Theology of the Body or a synopsis of it for a complete explanation. I believe this link does a decent job. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0055.html
Basically, the Church's view is that birth control lets you not have to think as seriously about the consequences of having sex and suggests that having sex whenever you wish without having to consider that you might have a baby is spiritually harmful. I think the Church definitely has the right of things with the idea that carefully considering sex is better for the spirit than not.
As someone who was brought up Catholic and went to Catholic school I think it's a damn shame that I can't remember being introduced to Theology of the Body until I attended mandatory pre-cana class before getting married. Or perhaps I was but didn't understand it or care to understand it.
I can't and won't comment on the Church's views as they pertain to birth control and public health issues. I don't know enough about the Church's views on the matter or the public health issues in question.
As for the subject of this article, I agree strongly with the Pope's sentiment that intellectual property is over zealously protected to the point that the protection of intellectual property hinders development. I wonder if this letter implies future action by the Church. It would be interesting to see Creative Commons supported by the Catholic Church.
@34
f th frcns hr th "cndms=sn" prt nd mss th "sx tsd f mrrg=sn" prt thn th prblm s smply tht frcns r stpd. If there are Catholic priests preaching this then that's another problem but that isn't the objection. The real problem with the Pope's approach is that no one believes the priests. I've known people who've worked in Sierra Leone and they say that on the coast the people are Christian and inland they're Muslim but really they're all Animists. The reality is that the Pope can say anything he wants; no one is listening.
@Ben665 #35:
If the Africans hear the "condoms=sin" part and miss the "sex outside of marriage=sin" part then the problem is simply that Africans are stupid.
Lots of self-identified Christians (in Africa and elsewhere) rationalize that it's better to commit one sin than two.
Also, you're not going to make a lot of friends by boiling the AIDS pandemic down to "Africans are stupid!" The fact is that most Africans don't have the benefit of a basic education, and ignorance is deadly. That's why the messages they do hear (like Papal decrees relayed through missionaries) should be as accurate and helpful as possible.
@36
Look, if the Pope himself went to Zimbabwe and said, "You can use condoms," it would have the exact effect as if Richard Dawkins did the same thing. They just don't recognize his authority.
And I guess I'll have to spell this one out:
Premise 1-If the Africans hear the "condoms=sin" part and miss the "sex outside of marriage=sin" part then the problem is simply that Africans are stupid.
Premise 2-Africans are not stupid.
Conclusion-Africans don't hear either part.
Thanks for just assuming that I'm a racist.
As ironic it is that the Pope is damning "rigid ideology", I'm pretty much with him on this.
@ Ben665 #37:
Nobody is saying AIDS would disappear if the Pope changed his position on condoms. But SOME people would use condoms who aren't using them now.
Saying "nobody listens to the Pope" is just as stupid as saying "everybody listens to the Pope." He is an influential figure among a certain portion of the population, so what he says does matter.
@40
Some people would start wearing condoms and there would, undoubtedly, be a reduction in the massive populations of these countries and assorted other benefits. This would have little effect on the spread of HIV because the portion of the population who listen to the Pope are already not spreading HIV. The portion who spread HIV will continue ignoring the Pope and not using condoms.
ben665,
You keep repeating yourself. If you don't have anything new to say, please stop.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061201175736AAx89Vt
ben665 #33 "If abstinence does not work then why do the fundamentalist Muslim countries have the lowest rates of HIV infection in the world?"
I don't know if you realize the program you're putting forward as an ideal of abstinence. Sure, abstinence is easy if you don't let chicks hang around with men that aren't their relatives. Sure, abstinence is easy if you stone them if they do. Sure, it's easy if you, y'know, hang "the gays". Everything is easy if you treat the greys of reality with the black & white of brutal, unyielding absolutist punishments.
That doesn't make it right.
Profiteers of death are absurd, their spammers moreso.