Big Pharma Doesn’t Treat Sick People, It Treats Rich People—Let's Change That | Nicole Hassoun

I argue that human rights should give us hope and inspire us to stake our claims and help everyone live a dignified life. I think hope supports this virtue of creative resolve, which is a fundamental commitment to trying to find ways of fulfilling rights. Creative resolve is a personal as well as political virtue, so that's the kind of thing that individuals can have in their own personal lives as well as in working together to bring about positive change.

When each of us finds obstacles to doing things that we really believe in, then I think often we need to think creatively about how we can change the problem or look at the problem differently. People might ask, "Well, how far do you have to go with this? Aren’t we actually facing resource constraints? Aren’t there times we have to let people die?"

And I was listening to this podcast, I think it was in New Orleans, where they had a hospital and they had to do triage because the helicopters were coming to save everybody and it was in the flood. So there’s this nurse who had resuscitated somebody and she was pumping this oxygen bag, and the doctor says to her, “Look, you’re going to have to let that guy go, the helicopters just aren’t coming.”

So she holds this guy in her arms while he dies. And I think that’s the point at which we should be before we give up, that creative resolve requires us to go all the way to that edge. There were 2000 people or something in that hospital who were largely unoccupied for the 24 hour or 48 or 64 hours until those helicopters came.

And so creative resolve would think, how would we keep somebody pumping that oxygen bag for the next day or two? Maybe we could line people up and take turns. So I think we have to make the hope for human rights and global health, and that requires each of us to think creatively about ways of helping people.

My own project is the Global Health Impact project, where we attempt to evaluate pharmaceutical consequences for global health around the world and then create incentives for companies and other organizations to actually focus on extending access on essential medicines more broadly, because they can receive credit on this rating system. It’s a kind of human rights indicator that I think could make a large difference.

In the later parts of the book, I argue that pharmaceutical companies are actually violating rights and failing to live up to their obligations when they set prices that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to access essential medicines, and there are alternatives to doing that.

I think there are some more fundamental questions about how we restructure our research and development systems to reward innovation that actually has the right kinds of consequences for global health. So rather than treating these chronic diseases of rich patients, where the pharmaceutical companies can make the most money, if we can give them incentives to focus on the largest health problems around the world, I think that would be absolutely fantastic.

And so the idea of creating something like a fair trade label that pharmaceutical companies might love, because they can make more for products that have these labels if people are willing to incentivize them to try to get that label based on having a larger health impact, that could be pretty fantastic.

There’s also a large public health side to what I’m doing, so again, if we know where we’re having an impact and where we’re not, at say, the country level, that could be really important for guiding the distribution of medicines or focusing efforts to promote positive change.