Public health concerns justify government violation of pharmaceutical patents.

Alright, I will be starting with point 1, moving to point 2, and then covering dropped arguments by my opponents. __________________________________________________________________________ Point 1: My opponent offers 4 different planks one of which has a paragraph of justification behind it. Thus I will be focusing on each sub point. 1a. "Pharmaceutical patents limit who is able to produce a drug." This is entirely true but let me expand on this a little bit. Pharmaceutical patents do not only limit who can produce the drug but through limiting who can produce the drug pharmaceutical patents dictate how much the drug is put on the market for. This of course is the fundamental problem seen in Sub-S right now, prices that are too high for the common Sub-Saharan citizen to purchase. (Keep in mind some of those citizens make less than 2 dollars per week.) 1b. Yes and no. The government could violate the patent by producing the drug, this is true. However the government could also violate the patent by making it null and then allowing another company to produce the drug. 1c. "The government cannot, should not, and will not produce drugs." This is false. Governments quite clearly can produce goods, while the United States government is not the best example because it is primarily a capitalist nation it still has nationalized some things. For instance in the United States some transportation is produced solely by the government. Furthermore education to an extent has been nationalized by the government. While the private sector does produce a vast amount of the GPA in the country government activities non-the-less do account for 12.4% of the GPA. My point is this, the United States government has the ability to produce, it can produce medicine. However we are not just talking about the United States here, we are talking about governments in general. And other governments most certainly do produce medicine. Look at parts of Europe and Cuba, a country who's number one industry is medical tourism nationalized by the government. Next my opponent states that if the government hired a contractor that wasn't the patent holder to produce the medicine then it would be the contractor and not the government doing the violating. This is clearly fallacious, if the government did do this then the government would null the patent before the company created the product. If the government did not do this then the company would be violating federal law, and the government would be forced to act accordingly. Thus the government can hire a contractor while simultaneously violating a pharmaceutical patent, itself. Finally my opponent states that it is not the governments job to produce, it is the governments job to govern. I contest his theory, I believe instead that it is the governments job to solve national or global problems in a coordinated manner. If this means saving 900,000 people from certain death each and every year, so be it. So a brief recap is in order. The government can produce drugs, the government should produce drugs in order to save lives. We are talking about every government in existence not just the United States. Even if those governments hire contractors to produce the drugs the government still must be the one to violate the patent in some way, whether this means nulling it or simply making an exception for said company. 1d. Cross apply 1a, 1b, and 1c, those three cover this point very nicely. In fact, just reread the paragraph before this one, it covers the points. ______________________________________________________________________ Point 2: My opponent once again offers 4 sub points, I will be focusing on each of them in turn. I will be showing how my opponent is going to require a substantial amount of proof to back up his opinions. 2a. "It is unfair to the Pharmaceutical company for the government to violate their patent." Is it really? Lets look once again to my example. Right now the pharmaceutical companies producing Malaria drugs are making a hypothetical x amount of money. Those same companies are not selling to Sub-Saharan Africa thus the plan is this. Governments violate the patents allowing the governments to produce those drugs at a lower cost and distribute them potentially free. Thus at the end of the day when the Sub-Saharan Africans have the drugs and 900,000 of them are no longer dieing of Malaria the companies are still going to be making x amount of money. The fact that the government violated the patent and produced drugs for a population that the companies weren't producing for in the first place has 0 affect on the products. However I cannot stand to simply rebut this point, I must also turn it. What is even more unfair than the potential harm to pharmaceutical countries that my opponent is attempting to prove is the harm done to 900,000 people each year who were born by no choice of their own into the poorest region of the world. These people have just as much right to live as anyone who is reading this debate yet my opponent is more interested in supporting those already living with a high quality of life. Placing monetary value above the value of life is far more unfair than any injustice that could happen to a pharmaceutical company. Making an extra couple dollars for your already bulging piggy bank is not worth the death of 900,000 annually. 2b. "The government and the Pharmaceutical company can come to a mutual agreement, whereby they can nullify the patent or a special exception can be made for the government." I agree that this is a fundamentally good idea. This does not change the fact however that not every pharmaceutical company out there is going to go for this. My opponent is going to have to prove in his next round that every pharmaceutical company would be completely fine with having their patent infringed upon at no benefit to themselves. Like my opponent said in his last round, "Helping people out is not a major incentive for a pharmaceutical company to do research." Furthermore even if my opponent can somehow prove that these companies are fine with patent infringement this does not nullify my case, let's examine 2c. 2c. "If the patent is first nullified or a special exception is made for the government, then the government would no longer be able to violate the patent." This is completely untrue. A nullification or special exception to an already standing patent is a violation of it. This would be like me telling everyone that they could not touch me, and then at a later date stating that my girlfriend can touch me. I violated the original ruling when I changed it. The same is true here, to change the patent in someway that differs at any point of contradiction from the original patent is a violation of the original patent. Furthermore if the companies do outright say no OR yes to the patent violation my case will still stand. As it is still a just cause to save the 900,000 lives in face of profit. Thus the resolution is still proved true. This is simply two scenarios that are just. For instance if a bully was beating me up a just response would be to fight back, but a better response would be to run away and get a police officer. They are both JUST responses, one just happens to be better. The same is true here, both cases are JUST responses to the deaths of 900,000 people, one just happens to be better. 2d. Cross apply every point above. _________________________________________________________________________ Finally lets examine the things my opponent has dropped. -He concedes that Sub-S needs the Malaria drugs. -He concedes that utilitarianism and life over profit are the highest values in this round. -He concedes my resolutional analysis. With that I can see nothing but a Pro vote at this point in time.