Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Also I would like to convey my dejection towards the fact that at least 1 of the 8 debaters I felt for sure would be in the top 8 of this tournament will be out after this round. Having said this, I will begin by analyzing the resolution and deciding exactly what it means. _______________________________________________________________________________ The resolution begins with, "public health concerns" this phrase is quite clearly plural. Therefor in this debate round I will have to prove that their are at least two scenarios that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. On the other hand the opposite of this resolution and the position my opponent will have to defend is clearly, "Public health concerns do not justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. " Thus my opponent in this round is going to have to show that there is only one (singular) or that there are zero public health concerns that justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents. Furthermore in this round I will be functioning off the paradigm that the human life holds a value that cannot be measured by means of monetary value. I will also be functioning off the value of utilitarianism which in this round will be used to convey the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Within my definition good shall be defined as being of the greatest paradigm. Which in this case shall be the intrinsic value of human life vs. monetary value. ____________________________________________________________________________ Contention 1: Malaria. "Malaria affects more than a billion people worldwide and kills a million -- mainly under age five -- every year, the vast majority in sub-Saharan Africa. ", this being from the AFP on April 7th 2008. In fact about 9/10ths of the Malaria victims each year are in sub-Saharan Africa. This means that approximately 900,000 deaths occur in sub-saharan africa per year because of Malaria. However these are not just any deaths these are unneeded deaths. Specifically we will be examining the United States, a state where malaria is all but non-existent. In fact in many parts of the nation malaria has not occurred at all in the last 3 years. This eradication of Malaria was in part due to many measures by the state. Anti-mosquito spraying was of a great service, as was drainage control and the removal of mosquito breeding sites. However an equally important aspect of the eradication was more focused on the human side of the spectrum. This aspect was and is anti-malaria drugs, which prevented the disease even if a human being happened to be bit by a female mosquito carrier. These drugs still exist today, in the United States they are primarily used to protect citizens who are leaving the country. The CDC's website actually recommends taking them before going to specific regions, . http://wwwn.cdc.gov... . Africa is one of these regions. This of course raises a question. If these drugs are so easy to come by that they can be given to an everyday traveler why exactly does this disease still exist in parts of the world? The answer is rather simple and very depressing, these drugs cost money and of course a large part of sub-Saharan Africa is currently living in immense poverty. Thus in the status quo we, as a society, are valuing a profit over the lives of 900,000 people annually. While some companies in the status quo are taking an initiative on themselves to combat this problem without outside pressure the fact remains that close to a million people are dieing each year. This can be combated and helped by government violation of pharmaceutical patents. If the government of not only the United States but also the governments of Sub-Saharan African nations have the ability to manufacture these drugs at a cost that denies a profit margin the chances of these drugs reaching the people in need will increase. In fact, violation of pharmaceutical patents could potentially allow for governments to distribute these drugs at no cost for the simple exchange of a minor increase in taxes. This of course has the drawback of decreasing profit for the patent owners but the saving on even one life that did not need to die far outweighs this impact. Therefor I stand open for my opponents case.